Buffon's Natural History. Volume 09 (of 10)
by comte de Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon · English · Gutenberg #45867 · 453,991 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Buffon's Natural History. Volume 09 (of 10)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Buffon's Natural History. Volume 09 (of 10)
Author: comte de Georges Louis Leclerc Buffon
Editor: James Smith Barr
Release date: June 3, 2014 [eBook #45867]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45867
Credits: Produced by Chris Curnow, Tom Cosmas and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK BUFFON'S NATURAL HISTORY. VOLUME 09 (OF 10) ***
Transcriber Note
Text emphasis is denoted as _Italic Text._
_Barr's Buffon._
Buffon's Natural History.
CONTAINING
A THEORY OF THE EARTH,
A GENERAL
_HISTORY OF MAN_,
OF THE BRUTE CREATION, AND OF
VEGETABLES, MINERALS,
_&c. &c._
FROM THE FRENCH.
WITH NOTES BY THE TRANSLATOR.
IN TEN VOLUMES.
VOL. IX.
London:
PRINTED FOR THE PROPRIETOR,
AND SOLD BY H. D. SYMONDS, PATERNOSTER-ROW.
1807.
T. Gillet, Crown-court, Fleet-street.
CONTENTS
OF
THE NINTH VOLUME
_Page_
_The Loris_ 1
_The Javelin Bat_ 3
_The Serval_ 6
_The Ocelot_ 9
_The Margay_ 13
_The Jackal and the Adil_ 17
_The Isatis_ 25
_The Glutton_ 29
_The Stinkards_ 35
_The Pekan and the Vison_ 41
_The Leming_ 46
_The Sea Otter_ 51
_The Canakian Otter_ 52
_The Seal, Walrus, and the Manati_ 55
_The Seal_ 57
_The Walrus, Morse, or Sea-Cow_ 78
_The Dugon_ 89
_The Manati_ 92
_The Nomenclature of Apes_ 107
_The Orang-Outang, or the Pongo and the Jocko_ 149
_The Pithecos, or Pigmy_ 177
_The Gibon, or Long-tailed Ape_ 185
_The Magot, or Barbary Ape_ 188
_The Papion, or Baboon, properly so called_ 192
_The Mandrill_ 197
_The Ouanderou, and the Lowando_ 199
_The Maimon_ 202
_The Macaque, and the Egret_ 205
_The Patas_ 208
_The Malbrouck, and the Bonnet Chinois_ 210
_The Mangabey_ 216
_The Mona_ 218
_The Callitrix, or Green Monkey_ 221
_The Moustac_ 224
_The Talapoin_ 225
_The Douc_ 227
_The Sapajous and the Sagoins_ 231
_The Ourine, and the Alouate_ 234
_The Coati, and the Exquima_ 240
_The Sajou_ 247
_The Sai_ 249
_The Siamiri_ 251
_The Saki_ 252
_The Tamarin_ 254
_The Ouistiti_ 255
_The Marikina_ 258
_The Pinch_ 259
_The Mico_ 261
_Account of some Animals not expressly treated
of in this Work_ 264
_The White Bear_ 265
_The Tartarian Cow_ 272
_The Tolai_ 275
_The Zizel_ 276
_The Zemni_ 277
_The Pouch_ 279
_The Perouasca_ 279
_The Souslik_ 280
_The Golden-coloured Mole_ 282
_The White Water-Rat_ 283
_The Guinea-Hog_ 284
_The Wild Boar of Cape Verd_ 285
_The Mexican Wolf_ 293
_The Alco_ 295
_The Tayra, or Galeri_ 299
_The Philander of Surinam_ 300
_The Akouchi_ 302
_The Tucan_ 304
_The Field-Mouse of Brasil_ 305
_The Aperea_ 306
_The Tapeti_ 307
_Supplement to the Quadrupeds_ 309
_The Crab-eater_ 309
_Anonymous Animal_ 312
_Rat of Madagascar_ 314
_Degeneration of Animals_ 315
_Directions for placing the Plates in the Ninth Volume._
Page 1, Fig. 176, 177, 178, 179.
9, Fig. 180, 181.
29, Fig. 182, 183, 184.
35, Fig. 185, 186, 187, 188.
41, Fig. 189, 190, 191.
57, Fig. 192, 193, 194.
150, Fig. 195, 196.
189, Fig. 197, 198.
197, Fig. 199, 200.
202, Fig. 201, 202, 203.
208, Fig. 204, 205, 206, 207.
221, Fig. 208, 209, 210.
225, Fig. 211, 212, 215.
247, Fig. 213, 214, 216.
255, Fig. 217, 218, 219.
BUFFON'S
NATURAL HISTORY.
_OF CARNIVOROUS ANIMALS._
THE LORIS.
The Loris (_fig. 176._) is a small animal found in Ceylon, very
remarkable for the elegance of its figure, and for the singularity of
its conformation: it has, perhaps, of all animals, the longest body
in proportion to its bulk, having nine vertebræ in the loins, whereas
other quadrupeds have only five, six, or seven. The length of the body
is the natural effect of this structure, and it appears the longer
for having no tail; in other respects, it resembles the maki kind, as
well in the hands and feet as in the quality of the hair, the number
of teeth, and the sharpness of its muzzle. Independently of these
singularities, which separates this animal from the makis, he has
other particular attributes. His head is entirely round; his eyes are
excessively large, and very close to each other; his ears are large,
round, and, in their insides, have three auricles in the shape of small
shells; but what is still more singular, and perhaps unmatched in the
whole tribe of animals, is that the female discharges her urine through
the clitoris, which is perforated like the sexual organ of the male,
and who in these two parts perfectly resemble each other.
Linnæus has given a short description of this animal, which appears to
be exactly conformable to Nature. It is also very correctly delineated
by Seba; and evidently appears to be the same as that which Thevenot
speaks of in the following terms: "I saw, (says he) in the Mogul
country, monkeys which had been brought from Ceylon; they were greatly
valued on account of their size, being not bigger than a man's fist.
They were different from the common monkey, having a flat forehead,
eyes round and large, and of a bright yellow colour, like those of some
cats: their muzzle is very pointed: the inside of the ears is yellow,
and they have no tail. When I examined them they sat erect on their
hind feet, folded the others across, and looked round at the spectators
without the least signs of fear."
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 176. _Loris._ FIG. 177. _Javelin Bat._]
[Illustration: FIG. 178. _Lame Headed Bat._ FIG. 179. _Shrew Bat._]
THE JAVELIN BAT.
Among the numbers of the bat species, which were neither named nor
known, we indicated some by names derived from foreign languages, and
others by denominations drawn from their most striking characters. We
have called one the _Horse-shoe Bat_, from the exact resemblance the
fore-part of its face bears to a horse-shoe, and the animal in question
we have called the Javelin Bat, (_fig. 177._) from a sort of membrane
on its nose which perfectly resembles the head of an ancient javelin,
or spear. Though this character alone is sufficient to distinguish it
from all other bats, yet we may add, that it has scarcely any tail,
that its hair and size are nearly like the common bat, but that instead
of having six incisive teeth in the lower jaw, it has only four. This
species of bat is very common in America, but is never found in Europe.
There is another bat in Senegal, which has also a membrane upon its
nose, not in the form of a horse-shoe, or javelin, as in the two
bats we have just mentioned, but in the shape of an oval leaf. These
three bats, being of different climates, are not simple varieties but
distinct and separate species. M. Daubenton has given the description
of the Senegal bat, under the name of the _leaf bat_, in the Memoirs of
the Royal Academy of Sciences, 1759, p. 374.
Bats which have great affinities to birds, by the power of flying,
and the strength of their pectoral muscles, seem to resemble them
still more in these membranes, or crests, which they have on their
faces. These redundant parts, which, at first sight, seem only to be
superfluous deformities, are real characters which fill up the visible
shades between these flying quadrupeds and birds; for most of the
latter have crests, or membranes, about their beaks and heads, which
seem in every respect as superfluous as those of the bats.
SUPPLEMENT.
We have received from M. Pallas the figures and descriptions of
two bats hitherto unknown to naturalists; the first he calls the
_cephalote_, or large-headed bat, (_fig. 178._) from its head being
so very large in proportion to its body. This bat M. Pallas says is
found in the Malacca islands; and from his finding but one foetus in
a female, which was sent to him to Amsterdam, and which he dissected,
he concludes they have but one young at a time: this species differs
also from all others in the teeth, which in some measure resemble those
of the mouse or hedge-hog; it has a short tail, situated between the
thighs, a large nose and a broad muzzle; its breast is very similar to
that of a bird; it is very near four inches long, and its wings extend
above a foot.
The second he calls the _vespertilio soricinus_, or _shrew bat_ (_fig.
179._); this one has no tail, and carries a peculiar membrane on its
nose; it is the smallest that is met with without a tail, being not
more than two inches in length. This species is very common in the
warm climates of America, the Carribbee Islands, and Surinam.
At the same time M. Pallas sent us the account of these animals he
remarked that we were in an error in our former description of the
javelin bat, by confounding it with the American bat, mentioned by
Seba, he, from a careful examination, being convinced of their being
different species; and we feel ourselves indebted to this gentleman for
the pains he has taken to rectify our mistake.
THE SERVAL.
This animal, which was kept alive several years in the royal menagerie,
by name of the _tiger-cat_, seems to be the same with that described by
the gentlemen of the Academy, under the denomination of _chat-pard_;
and we should have still remained ignorant of its true name if the
Marquis de Montmirail had not discovered it in an Italian book of
travels which he has translated, and sent the following extract: "The
_maraputé_, which the Portugueze in India, called _serval_ (says P.
Vincent-Marie) is a ferocious animal, larger than the wild cat, and
something less than the civet, from which last he differs by his head
being rounder and thicker, and his face sinking in about the middle.
He resembles the panther in the colour of his hair, which is yellow
on the head, back, and sides, and white under the belly; also by the
spots, which are distinct, equally distributed, and a little less than
those of the panther. His eyes are very brilliant; his whiskers are
composed of long and stiff bristles; his tail is short; his feet large,
and armed with long and hooked claws. He is found in the mountains of
India; he is seldom seen on the ground, but remains almost continually
on high trees, where he catches birds, which are his principal food.
He leaps as nimbly as a monkey, and goes from one tree to another with
such address and agility and passes over a great space in so short a
time, that he may be said only to appear and disappear; he is ferocious
in his nature, but flees at the sight of man, unless irritated, or
his nest attacked, when he flies at the offender, and bites and tears
nearly like the panther."
Neither captivity, nor good nor bad treatment, will tame or soften the
ferocity of this animal. That which we saw in the menagerie was always
ready to rush on those who came near him: we could neither take a
design nor a description of him, otherwise than betwixt the bars of his
cage. He was fed with flesh, like the panther and leopard. This serval,
or maraputé of Malabar and India, seems to be the same animal as the
tiger-cat of Senegal and the Cape of Good Hope, which, according to the
testimony of travellers, resembles our cat in its shape, and the tiger
(that is the panther or leopard) by the black and white spots of his
fur. "This animal (say they) is four times larger than a cat; is of a
very voracious nature, and feeds on monkeys, rats, and other animals."
From the comparison which we made of the serval and the _chat pard_,
described by the gentlemen of the Academy, we discovered no other
difference than the long spots on the back, and the rings on the tail
of the latter, which the serval has not. The spots on the back of the
serval are closer than those on the other parts of his body; but these
little disagreements are so slight that we cannot doubt of the identity
of the species of these two animals.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 180. _Ocelot._]
[Illustration: FIG. 181. _Jackal._]
THE OCELOT.
Ocelot is an abbreviation of _tlalocelotl_, the name of this animal
in Mexico, its native country. It is ferocious and carnivorous, and
may be ranked with the jaguar and cougar, for it is very nearly the
same size, and resembles them in figure and dispositions. A male and
female were shewn at the fair of St. Ovide, in September 1764. They
came from the neighbourhood of Carthagena, and had been taken from
their mother in the month of October, 1763. They became so strong and
cruel at the age of three months as to kill and eat the bitch which had
nursed them. When we saw them, at a year old, they were about two feet
long, and they had then, probably, not attained more than one half, or
two-thirds, of their growth. These animals were shewn by the name of
the _tiger-cat_, but we have rejected this denomination as precarious
and confused, especially as the jaguar, serval, and the margay, or
Cayenne cat, were sent to us under the same denomination, although
those three animals are very different from each other, as well as from
the one we are at present treating of.
The first author who mentions this animal in a distinct manner is
Fabri. He caused Recchi's designs of it to be engraven, and composed
his description from them. He gives also a kind of history of him from
the writings and information of Gregoire de Bolivar. I made these
observations with a view to throw light on the circumstance which had
led all the naturalists into an error, and by which I acknowledge I was
also deceived. This circumstance is to know whether the two animals
designed by Recchi, the first by the name of _tlatlauhquiocelotl_ and
the second by that of _tlacoozlotl_, _tlalocelotl_, and afterwards
described by Fabri as different species, are not the same animal. They
were considered as distinct animals, notwithstanding the resemblance
of their figures, because their names, and even descriptions, were
different. I then supposed the first might be the same as the jaguar,
and therefore gave him the Mexican name of _tlatlauhquiocelotl_, which
I am now convinced does not belong to him; and since I have seen both
the male and female, I am persuaded, that the two described by Fabri,
are only the same animal, of which the first is the male, and the
second the female. This error could only have been discovered by such a
chance as we had of examining both the male and the female together. Of
all animals whose skins are spotted, the robe of the male ocelot (_fig.
180._) is certainly the most beautiful, and most elegantly varied. Even
the skin of the leopard does not come near it for the liveliness of its
colours, and the regularity of its marks; and far less those of the
jaguar, panther, and ounce. The colours of the female ocelot are much
weaker, and the design less regular; and this apparent difference it
was that deceived Recchi, Fabri, and others, and was the occasion of
their considering them as different species.
When the ocelot has arrived at its full growth, he is, according to
Bolivar, two feet and a half high, and about four feet long. The tail,
though of a good length, does not touch the ground when hanging down,
and consequently is not more than two feet long. This animal is very
voracious, but at the same time exceedingly timid. He seldom attacks
the human species, and is terrified at the sight of a dog. When
pursued, he flies to the forests, and climbs up a tree for safety,
where he also sleeps and watches for small animals, on which he
springs when he sees them within his reach. He prefers blood to flesh,
and for this reason he destroys a great number of animals; for instead
of satisfying his hunger by devouring their flesh, he only quenches his
thirst by sucking their blood.
In a state of captivity he preserves his savage nature: nothing can
soften his ferocious disposition, nor calm his restless motion, which
makes it necessary to confine him constantly in a cage. "After these
young animals (says M. de l'Escot) had devoured their nurse, I confined
them in a cage, and had them fed with fresh meat, of which they eat
from seven to eight pounds a day. The male had a singular superiority
over the female, for however hungry the latter might be, she never
touched any of the food until he was satisfied, or such pieces as he
gave her, having previously rejected them. I several times gave them a
live cat, whose blood they sucked until the animal died, but they never
eat any of their flesh. I put two live kids on board the vessel for
their subsistence, for they neither eat, nor touched boiled nor salted
meat."
From the testimony of Gregoire de Bolivar, these animals commonly
produce but two young ones at a birth, which M. de l'Escot seems to
confirm, by saying, he had killed the mother before the two ocelots we
have been speaking of, were taken away.
THE MARGAY.
The Margay is much smaller than the ocelot. He resembles the wild
cat in the size and shape of his body, only his head is more square,
his snout and tail longer, and his ears more rounded; his hair also
is shorter than that of the wild cat, and he has black streaks and
spots on a yellow ground. He was sent us from Cayenne by the name of
the _tiger-cat_, and, in fact, he partakes of the nature of the cat,
jaguar, and ocelot, animals to which the name of tiger has been affixed
in the New Continent. According to Fernandes, when this animal has
arrived at its full growth, it is not quite so big as the civet; and,
according to Marcgrave, whose comparison seems more just, he is about
the size of a wild cat, which he also resembles in his natural habits,
living upon fowls and small animals. He is very difficult to tame,
and never completely loses his natural ferocity. He varies greatly in
his colours, though they are commonly such as we have described. This
animal is very common in Guinea, Brasil, and all the other provinces
of South America. It is probable that the _pichou_ of Louisiana is the
same animal, but the species is less common in temperate than in hot
climates.
If we recapitulate those cruel animals, whose robes are so beautiful,
and whose natures are so malign, we shall find the tiger, panther,
leopard, ounce, and serval, inhabit the Old Continent; and the jaguar,
ocelot, and margay, natives of the New. These three last appear to be
miniatures of the former, and which, having neither their size nor
strength, are as timid and cowardly in proportion as the others are
bold and intrepid.
There is another animal of this class which the furriers call
_Guepard_. We have seen many of their skins, and they have a
resemblance to the lynx in the length of the hair; but the ears not
being terminated by a brush of hair, the guepard cannot be a lynx.
Neither is he a panther nor a leopard; for his hair is not so short
as that of those animals, and he differs from all of them by a kind
of mane, about four or five inches long on his neck, and between his
shoulders. The hair on his belly is also three or four inches long, and
his tail much shorter in proportion than that of the leopard, panther,
or ounce. He is nearly of the size of the last animal, not being
above three feet and a half long. He is of a very pale yellow colour,
sprinkled with black spots like the leopard, but closer to each other,
and much smaller.
I thought this animal might be the same as that which Kolbe mentions by
the name of the _tiger-wolf_. He is common in the countries bordering
on the Cape of Good Hope. He remains all the day in the clefts of the
rocks, or in holes which he digs in the ground. In the night he seeks
for prey, but as he howls when in search of game, he warns men and
animals of his approach; so that it is very easy to avoid, or to kill
him. The name _guepard_, is apparently derived from the word _lepard_;
the mode in which the German and Dutch spell _leopard_. We have also
observed there are many varieties in this species, both in respect to
the ground colour, and that of the spots; but every _guepard_ has the
common character of long hairs on the belly, and a mane on the neck.
SUPPLEMENT.
M. de la Borde, in treating of the tiger-cat of Cayenne, says, he has a
skin spotted very much like that of the ounce; that he is smaller than
the fox, but whom he much resembles in habits and disposition; that he
generally resides in the woods, and lives chiefly on the game which he
destroys; as he climbs trees with great facility, he seizes their young
in their nests, and upon the branches of trees he lies in wait for his
prey; he rather leaps than walks, and yet does not proceed very fast;
that at Cayenne they keep these animals chained in their houses; and
the utmost degree they seem to be tamed, is to suffer themselves to be
stroked on the back; they are there fed with fish or flesh, and will
not take any other kind of food; and that they bring forth as well in
the winter as summer, and generally two at a time.
M. Colinson mentions another species of tiger-cat as a native of
Carolina, and of whom he has given me the following description: "The
size of the male was nineteen inches from the nose to the tail; the
latter of which was four inches long, and was encircled with eight
white rings; his principal colour was a light brown mixed with grey,
with black stripes along his sides; his belly was inclined to white
sprinkled with black spots, as were also his legs, which were very
slight; his ears were very open and covered with hair; under his eyes
were two large black spots, and beneath them a tuft of stiff black
hairs. The female was of a less make; she was more inclined to red, and
had no black spots, except a single one on the belly."
THE JACKAL, AND THE ADIL.
We are not certain whether these two names denote animals of different
species; we only know that the jackal (_fig. 181._) is larger, more
ferocious, and more difficult to be tamed, than the adil; but in other
respects they bear a perfect resemblance. The adil, therefore, may
possibly be the jackal become smaller, weaker, and more gentle, than
the wild race, from being tamed and rendered domestic; for the adil
is nearly the same, with respect to the jackal, as the lap-dog, or the
little water spaniel, is to the shepherd's dog. However, as this fact
is only exemplified in a few particular instances; as the jackal is
not, in general, domestic like the dog, and, as such great differences
are seldom found in a free species, we are inclined to believe that
the jackal and the adil are really two distinct species. The wolf,
the fox, the jackal, and the dog, though they approach very nigh each
other, form four distinct species. The varieties in the dog species
are very numerous; the greatest part of which seems to proceed from
their domestic state, to which they have been so long subjected. Man
has multiplied the race in this species by mixing the great with the
small, the handsome with the ugly, the long haired with the short,
&c. But there are many varieties in the dog species, independently of
those races produced by the care of man, which seem to derive their
origin from the climate. The English bull-dog, the Danish dog, the
spaniel, the Turkish dog, the Siberian dog, and others, derive their
names from the countries of which they are natives; and there seems to
be greater differences between them than between the jackal and the
adil. The jackals, therefore, may have undergone several changes from
the influence of different climates; and which supposition corresponds
with the facts we have collected. From the writings of travellers it
appears, that there are different sized jackals in all parts, that in
Armenia, Silesia, Persia, and in all that part of Asia, called the
Levant, where this species is very numerous, troublesome, and very
hurtful; they are generally about the size of our foxes; but their legs
are shorter, and the colour of their hair is of a glossy and bright
yellow; and this is the reason why they have been called the _yellow_,
or _golden wolf_. This species seem to have undergone many varieties in
Barbary, the East Indies, the Cape of Good Hope, and in other provinces
of Africa and Asia. In these hot countries they are large, and their
hair is rather of a reddish brown than of a beautiful yellow; and some
of them are of different colours. The species of the jackal is spread
all over Asia, from Armenia to Malabar; and is found also in Arabia,
Barbary, Mauritania, Guinea, and at the Cape of Good Hope. It seems to
supply the place of the wolf, which is wanting, or at least, is very
scarce in all these hot countries.
However, as both the jackal and the adil are found in the same
countries; as the species cannot have been altered by a long
continuance in a domestic state, and as there is always a considerable
difference in the size, and even in the dispositions of these animals,
we shall look on them as distinct species, until it be proved that
they intermix and produce together. Our presumption on the difference
of these two species is the better founded, as it seems to agree
with the opinion of the ancients. Aristotle, after having spoken of
the wolf, the fox, and the hyæna, gives some obscure intimations
of two other animals of the same genus, one by the name of the
_panther_, and the other by that of the _thos_. The translators of
Aristotle have interpreted _panther_ by _lupus canarius_, and _thos_
by _lupus cervarius_; that is, the dog-wolf and the stag-wolf. This
interpretation sufficiently indicates, that they considered the panther
and thos to belong to the same species. But I observed, under the
article _lynx_, that the lupus cervarius of the Latins is not the thos
of the Greeks. This lupus cervarius is the same as the chaus of Pliny,
which is our lynx, and which has not a single character that agrees
with the thos. Homer, when painting the valour of Ajax, who singly
rushes among a band of Trojans, in the midst of whom Ulysses, wounded,
was engaged; compares him to a lion that suddenly springs on a troop
of the thos, surrounding a stag at bay, disperses and drives them away
as mean and contemptible animals. This word, thos, the commentator of
Homer interprets by that of panther, which he says is a kind of weak
and timid wolf: thus, the thos and panther have been considered as the
same animal by some of the ancient Greeks. But Aristotle seems to make
a distinction between them, without, however, giving them any distinct
characters. "The thos (says he) have their internal parts like those of
the wolf; they copulate like dogs, and bring forth two, three, or four
young ones at a time, which are born with their eyes shut. The body
and tail of the thos are longer than those of the dog; his legs are
shorter, but that does not prevent him from being as swift, and he can
spring much further. The lion and the thos are enemies, because they
both live upon flesh, and seek their food from the same source; hence
disputes arise between them. The thos never attacks, and is but little
afraid of the human species. He fights with the dog and the lion,
whence the lion and the thos are never seen in the same places. The
smallest thos is esteemed the best. There are two species of them, and
some authors even make three.[A]" This is all Aristotle says concerning
the thos, and he speaks still less about the panther; for he mentions
it but in one single passage in the 35th chapter of the sixth book of
his History of Animals, and there says, "the panther produces four
young ones at a time, which are born with their eyes shut like young
wolves." By comparing these passages with that of Homer, and other
Greek authors, it seems almost certain, that the thos of Aristotle is
the great jackal, and that the panther is the little jackal, or the
adil. We find, that he admits the existence of two species of thos, and
that he speaks of the panther but once, and that when treating of the
thos. It is therefore very probable, that this panther is the small
thos; and this probability seems to become almost a certainty by the
testimony of Oppian, who places the panther among the number of small
animals, such as the cat and dormice.
[Footnote A: Arist. Hist. Anim.]
Thus, then, the thos is the jackal, and the panther the adil, and
whether they make two different species, or but one, it is certain
that every thing which the ancients have said of the thos, or panther,
applies to the jackal and the adil, and to no other animal. If,
therefore, the true signification of these names have not been known
till now, or, if they have been misinterpreted, it is because the
translators were unacquainted with these animals, and that our modern
naturalists were not better informed.
Though the species of the wolf approaches very near to that of the
dog, yet the jackal finds a place between them both. The _jackal_, or
_adil_, as Belon remarks, _is an animal between the wolf and the dog_.
With the ferocity of the wolf he joins a little of the familiarity of
the dog; his voice is a kind of howl mixed with barking and groaning.
He is more noisy than the dog, and more voracious than the wolf. He
never stirs out alone, but always in flocks of twenty, thirty, or
forty. They collect together every day to go in search of their prey.
They live principally on small animals, and make themselves formidable
to the most powerful by their number. They attack every kind of
cattle or poultry almost in the presence of men. They boldly enter
stables, sheep-folds, and cow-houses, without any signs of fear, and
when they cannot meet with any thing better, they will devour boots,
shoes, harnesses, &c. and what they have not time to consume they
take away with them. When they cannot meet with any live prey they
dig up the carcasses of men and animals. The inhabitants are obliged
to cover the graves of the dead with large thorns, to prevent these
animals from scratching and digging up the bodies, for their being
buried very deep in the earth is not sufficient, to prevent them from
accomplishing their purpose. Numbers of them work together in this,
and they accompany their labour with a doleful cry; when they are
once accustomed to human bodies they search out burial places, follow
armies, and keep close to the caravans. They may be stiled the ravens
among quadrupeds, for they will eat the most infectious flesh. Their
appetite is so constant, and so vehement, that the driest leather,
skins, flesh, excrements, or the most putrified animal, is alike
welcome to them. The hyæna has the same taste for putrid flesh, and
also digs bodies out of their graves, on which account, though very
different from each other, they have often been confounded. The hyæna
is a solitary, silent, savage animal, which, though stronger and
more powerful than the jackal, is not so obnoxious, and is contented
with devouring the dead, without troubling the living, while all
travellers complain of the cries, thefts, and gluttony of the jackal,
who unites the impudence of the dog with the cowardice of the wolf,
and participating of the nature of each, seems to be an odious animal
composed of all the bad qualities of both.[B]
[Footnote B: There is one remarkable circumstance respecting the skin
of the jackal, which Buffon has omitted; it is a great spot of a dark
grey colour, formed like a lancet, the point of which is turned towards
the tail of the animal; this spot is of a darker brown when the jackal
is young. Sparman saw the foetus of a jackal which was of a beautiful
colour; but the spot on the back was of a deep brown.]
THE ISATIS.
If a number of general resemblances, and a perfect conformity of
internal parts, were sufficient to constitute unity of species, the
wolf, the fox, and the dog, would form but one, for the resemblances
are more numerous than their differences, and their internal parts are
entirely similar. These three animals, however, form three species, not
only distinct but sufficiently distant to admit intermediate ones. The
jackal is an intermediate species between the dog and the wolf; and the
isatis finds room between the fox and the dog. This animal has till
now been regarded as a variety in the fox species, but the description
given by Gmelin clearly proves them to be two different species.
The isatis is very common in all the northern countries adjacent to
the frozen sea, and but rarely found on this side the 69th degree of
latitude. He perfectly resembles the fox in the form of his body, and
the length of his tail; but his head is more like that of a dog. His
hair is softer than that of the common fox, and is sometimes white,
and sometimes of a bluish ash. His head is short in proportion to his
body; it is broad towards the neck, and terminates in a sharp-pointed
snout. His ears are almost round. He has five toes and five claws on
the fore-feet, and only four on the hind ones. The penis of the male
is scarcely thicker than a quill; the testicles are as big as almonds,
and so thickly covered with hair that it is difficult to perceive them.
The hair on every part of the body is about two inches long, smooth and
soft as wool. The nostrils, and under lip, have no hair on them, and
the skin is black.
The stomach, intestines, viscera, and spermatic vessels of both male
and female, are like those of the dog, and the whole skeleton entirely
resembles that of a fox.
The voice of the isatis partakes of the barking of a dog and the
yelping of a fox. Those who deal in furs distinguish two animals of
this kind, the one white, and the other of a bluish ash-colour; the
last are the most valuable. This difference in the colour is not
sufficient to constitute two different species, for experienced hunters
assured M. Gmelin that they have found in the same litter some of the
young ones white and others ash coloured.
The isatis inhabits the northern climates, and prefers those countries
which border on the frozen sea and the banks of the rivers which fall
into it. They are found in the coldest, most mountainous, and most
barren parts of Norway, Lapland, Siberia, and even Iceland. These
animals copulate in the month of March, and being formed like the dog
they do not separate for some time. The females continue in heat from
fifteen days to three weeks, and after that time they retire into the
holes, or burrows, which they have previously prepared. They make
several passages to these burrows, which they keep very clean, and
furnish with moss for their greater convenience. The time of gestation,
like that of the bitch, is about nine weeks. They litter about the
latter end of May, or beginning of June, and commonly produce from six
to eight at a time. Those which are yellow when first littered become
white as they grow up, and those which are blackish change to an ash.
When young their hair is very short. The mother suckles them five or
six weeks, after which time she drives them out of the burrow, and
teaches them to seek for their own nutriment. By September their hair
attains the length of half an inch, and it is then entirely white,
excepting a longitudinal brown streak upon the back, and another across
the shoulders; it is then called _vulpis crucigera_, or the _crost
fox_; but this brown cross disappears before the winter, when the whole
body of the animal is white, and the hair about two inches long. In May
their hair begins to fall off, and continues to do so until July, by
which time they have entirely shed their coats, so that their fur is
only valuable in winter.
The isatis lives upon rats, hares, and birds, which he catches with as
much subtlety as the fox. He plunges in the water, and traverses the
lakes in search of water-fowl and their eggs: and the only enemy he has
to dread in the desart and cold countries, is the glutton. As the wolf,
the fox, the glutton, and other animals which inhabit the northern
parts of Europe and Asia, have passed from one continent to the other,
and are to be found in America; we must therefore conclude the isatis
is to be met with in the New Continent, and I am inclined to believe
that the grey fox of North America, which Catesby has given the figure
of, may possibly be the isatis, instead of a simple variety in the
species of the fox.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 182. _Glutton._]
[Illustration: FIG. 183. _Carcajou._ FIG. 184. _Kmeajou._]
THE GLUTTON.
The body of the Glutton (_fig. 182._) is thick, and his legs short.
He is somewhat of the form of a badger, but nearly as thick again.
His head is short, his eyes small, his teeth very sharp and strong,
his tail rather short, and covered with hairs to its extremity. He is
black along the back, and of a reddish brown on the sides and flanks.
His fur is exceedingly beautiful, and much valued. This animal is very
common in Lapland, and in all neighbouring countries of the Northern
Seas, both in Europe and Asia. He is called _carcajou_ in Canada, and
in the northernmost parts of America. It is also highly probable that
the animal of Hudson's Bay, which Edwards has called the _quick hatch_,
or _wolverin_, is the same as the carcajou of Canada, or the glutton of
the northern part of Europe. That also which Fernandes has mentioned,
by the name of _tepeytzcuitli_, or the _mountain dog_, is, probably, of
the glutton species, and which may possibly be dispersed as far as the
desart mountains of New Spain.
Olaus Magnus seems to be the first who has mentioned this animal. He
says, that it is of the size of a large dog, that his ears and face
are like those of the cat; the feet and claws very strong; the hair
brown, long, and tough; and the tail bushy, like that of a fox, but
much shorter. According to Scheffer, the head is round; the teeth
strong and sharp, like those of the wolf; the hair black, the body
very broad, and the feet short like those of the otter. La Hontain,
who is the first that speaks of the carcajou of North America, says,
"Figure to yourself an animal of double the size and thickness of a
badger, and you have a perfect resemblance of this animal." According
to Sarrazin, who possibly only saw a young carcajou, its body is only
two feet long, and its tail eight inches. "It has (says he) a very
short and very thick head; its eyes are small; its jaws very strong
and furnished with thirty-two sharp teeth." The young bear, or young
wolf, of Edwards, which seems to be the same animal, was, according
to him, as thick again as a fox; its back was crooked; its legs short;
its belly almost trailing on the ground; and its tail of a middling
length tufted towards the end. All agree that this animal is a native
of the most northern parts of Europe, Asia, and America. Gmelin is the
only one who affirms, that it travels even into hot countries. But this
assertion appears very dubious, if not absolutely false. Gmelin, like
many other naturalists, has perhaps confounded the hyæna of the South,
with the glutton of the North, which bear some resemblance in their
natural habits, especially that of voracity; but in every other respect
they are entirely different.
The legs of the glutton are not formed for running; he cannot even walk
except slowly; but cunning supplies the deficiency of swiftness. He
conceals himself to watch for his prey; and to seize it with greater
security he climbs up trees, from which he darts even on the elk and
rein-deer, and fastens himself so strongly with his claws and teeth
on their backs that all their efforts cannot remove him. The poor
animal thus attacked, in vain flies with its utmost speed, in vain rubs
himself against trees, to obtain deliverance from this cruel enemy;
all is useless; fastened on his back or loins the glutton persists
in digging into his flesh, and sucking his blood, till the animal,
fainting with loss of blood, sinks a victim to his tormentor, when the
glutton devours his flesh with the utmost avidity and cruelty; and
several authors affirm, that it is almost inconceivable the length of
time he will continue eating, or the quantity of flesh he will devour.
The accounts of travellers are doubtless exaggerated; but if we even
retrench a great part of their recitals, there will still remain
sufficient to convince us that the glutton is much more voracious
than any other beast of prey; and from this circumstance he has,
not unjustly been denominated the _quadruped vulture_. He is more
insatiable, and commits greater depredations than the wolf; and would
destroy every animal, if he had sufficient agility, but he is reduced
to drag himself heavily along; and the only animal he is capable of
overtaking is the beaver, whom he easily destroys. He even attacks that
animal in his hole and devours both him and his young, unless they get
to the water, in which case the beaver escapes his enemy by swimming,
for the glutton stops his pursuit to feed on the fish he can find.
When deprived of living food, he goes in search of carcases, scratches
up the graves, and devours the flesh of dead bodies.
Although this animal is subtle and uses every art to conquer others,
he does not seem to have the least instinct for his own preservation.
This indifference, which seems to shew imbecility, is perhaps
occasioned by a different cause; for it is certain the glutton is not
a stupid animal, since he readily finds means to satisfy his perpetual
appetite; he does not want for courage, since he attacks every animal
indifferently that comes in his way, and does not fly at the sight of
man, nor even shew the least mark of fear. But this negligence for his
own safety does not arise from an indifference for his preservation,
but from a habit of security. He is almost a stranger to men, for being
a native and resident of desart countries where they seldom come, when
he does meet them, he has no reason to take them for enemies; besides,
in every contest with other animals he is certain of conquest; and
therefore he moves with confidence, and has not the least idea of
fear, which supposes some foreproved misfortune, or some experience
of weakness and inability. We have an example of this intrepidity in
the lion, who never turns his back on man, at least till he has tried
his strength; so the glutton traverses the snow, in his own desart
climate, in perfect security. In those regions he reigns supreme, as
does the lion in the forests and burning sands; and if not like him,
from superior prowess, he is no less so from the weakness and timidity
of those with whom he has to contend.
The isatis is not so strong, but much swifter than the glutton; he
serves the latter as a purveyor, for the glutton follows him in his
pursuit of animals, and often deprives him of his prey; for as soon
as he approaches, the isatis, to avoid his own destruction, takes to
flight, and leaves to his pursuer what he has not had time to devour.
Both these animals burrow under ground; but in every other habit they
differ. The isatis will associate and often go in company; while the
glutton always moves alone, or at most only with his female; indeed the
male and female are frequently found together in their burrows. The
most fierce dogs are averse from attacking the glutton, as he defends
himself with his teeth and feet, and often mortally wounds them; but as
he cannot escape by flight, when once beset it is not long before he is
subdued.
The flesh of the glutton, like that of every other voracious animal, is
very bad food. He is only hunted for his skin, which makes beautiful
fur, not inferior to the sable and black fox. Some of them, when
well-dressed, has a more beautiful gloss than any other skin, and is by
no means inferior in appearance to a rich damask.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 185. _Potot._ FIG. 186. _Chinch._]
[Illustration: FIG. 187. _Conepate._ FIG. 188. _Zorille._]
THE STINKARDS.
These animals are found in every part of South America; but they have
been very indistinctly described by travellers, and not only confounded
with each other, but also placed with animals of a very distinct
species. Hernandes has very clearly indicated three of these animals;
the first he calls by its Mexican name _ysquiepatl_, and which is the
same animal that Seba has given a figure of in his works, and is called
_squash_ in New Spain. The second Hernandes also denominates by the
same name, (_ysquiepatl_) and which in South America is called the
_skink_. The third he styles _conepate_, and which has been mentioned
by Catesby, under the appellation of the _American pole-cat_, and by
M. Brisson, by that of the _striped pole-cat_. Besides those mentioned
by Hernandes, there is a fourth kind of these animals called _zorille_,
in Peru, and in some parts of the Spanish settlements in India.
We are indebted to M. Aubry for the knowledge of the _squash_, the
_skink_, and the _zorille_; the two last may be regarded as originals,
as we do not meet with their figures in any other author.
The first of these animals came to M. Aubry under the name of _pekan_,
the _Devil's child_, or the _wild cat_ of Virginia. I perceived
it was not the real pekan, but the same animal that Hernandes has
described by the name of _ysquiepatl_, and which has been indicated
by travellers by the name of _squash_, or _potot_. (_fig. 185._) It
is about sixteen inches long; its legs are short, its muzzle rather
pointed, its ears small, its hair of a deep brown, and its claws black
and sharp. It chiefly dwells in the hollows and clefts of rocks, where
it brings forth its young. It lives upon small animals, birds, &c.
and often steals into a farm yard, where it kills the poultry, but
eats only their brains. When it is pursued or offended, it calls up
the most diabolical scents to its defence, and sends forth such a
horrid stench, that it is dangerous for men or dogs to approach it.
Its urine is apparently infected with this nauseous vapour, but which
does not seem habitual to it. "I had one of these animals sent me from
Surinam, (says Seba) which I kept alive in my garden during the summer;
I fastened it with a small chain; it never attempted to injure any
person; and when properly fed it might be managed like a little dog. It
burrowed in the earth with its snout, assisted by its two fore-paws,
the claws of which were long, and turned backwards: in the day-time
it concealed itself in the hole it had dug; at night it came out, and
after having cleaned itself it continued constantly running backwards
and forwards, as far as its chain would permit. It only eat as much
food as would satisfy its hunger; it never touched flesh nor bread,
but seemed principally fond of caterpillars, spiders, worms, &c. One
morning, towards the end of autumn, it was found dead, unquestionably
from not being able to endure the cold. The hair along its back was of
a deep chesnut; its ears were short, the fore-part of its head round,
and of a lighter colour than that on the back; on the belly it was
yellow. Its tail was of a middling length, covered with a brown and
short hair, annulated with small rings." Although the description and
figure given by Seba agrees with that of Hernandes, we must, however,
doubt their both being the same animal, since Seba does not make any
mention of its detestable scent; and it is difficult to conceive it
possible for him to have kept such a stinking animal a whole summer in
his garden, without speaking of the inconvenience that would arise from
such a circumstance; and we might suppose that the animal described
by Seba was a different one from that mentioned by Hernandes; this
suspicion, which at first sight seems to be well founded, must be
entirely obviated, when it is known that this animal only sends forth
this infectious scent when pursued or offended; and it has likewise
been caught and tamed by many people in America.
Among the above four kinds of _stinkards_, which we distinguish by
the names of the _squash_, or _potot_, _conepate_, _chinch_, or
_skink_, and _zorille_: the two last belong to the warmest parts of
South America, and may possibly be no more than two varieties, and not
different species. The two first are of the temperate climate of New
Spain, Louisiana, Carolina, &c. and seem to be distinct and different
species from the others; particularly the squash, which has the
peculiar character of having only four claws on the fore-feet, whereas
all the rest have five. But in other respects these animals are all
nearly alike, they have the same instinct, the same offensive scent,
and only differ in size, and in the colour and length of the hair. The
squash is of a pretty uniform brown colour, and its tail is not tufted
like the rest. The conepate (_fig. 187._) has five white stripes on a
black ground, running longitudinally from the head to the tail. The
skink, or chinch, (_fig. 186._) is white on the back, and black on the
sides, but quite black on the head, excepting a white streak from the
nape of the neck to the forehead; its tail is tufted and cloathed with
very long white hairs, mixed with some of a black colour.
The zorille, (_fig. 188._) which is also called mauripita, is still
smaller, and has a beautiful tail, as bushy as that of the chinch, from
which he differs however in the disposition of the colours on his coat.
He has several long white streaks, which run longitudinally from the
head to the middle of the back, on a black ground, and others which
pass transversely over the loins, the crupper, and the insertion of the
tail, one half of which is black and the other white, whereas the back
of the chinch is nearly all the same colour.
Kalm, speaking of this animal, says, "one of them came near the
farm where I lived. It was in winter, and during the night; the dogs
that were upon the watch pursued him until he discharged his urine
against them. Although I was in bed, and he at that time had got to
some distance, I thought I should have been suffocated, and the cows
and oxen, by their lowings, shewed how much they were affected by the
stench. About the end of the same year another of these animals crept
into our cellar, but did not exhale the smallest scent. A foolish
woman, however, perceiving him one night by the shining of his eyes,
disturbed and killed him; from that moment the stench began to spread,
the whole cellar was instantly filled with it to such a degree that the
woman kept her bed for several days, and all the meat, bread, and other
provisions in the place, were so infected that they were obliged to be
thrown out of doors."
These animals are somewhat like the European pole-cats; they also
resemble them in their natural habits, and the physical results of
their generation are the same. The pole-cat is the most offensive
animal for its scent in this continent; it is only stronger in the
stinkards, whose species are very numerous in America, whereas there
is only one of the pole-cat race in all the old continent; for I do
not believe, with Kolbe, that the animal he calls the stinking otter,
and which seems to be a real stinkard, exists as a native at the Cape
of Good Hope; and possibly Kolbe, who is not very exact, has borrowed
his description from P. Zuchel, whom he has quoted as having seen that
animal in Brasil. The animal of New Spain, called by Fernandes the
_ortohua_, seems to be the same animal as the Peruvian zorille; and
the _tepemaxtle_, mentioned by the same author, may probably be the
conapate, which is found in New Spain, as well as in Louisiana and
Carolina.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 189. _Pekan._ FIG. 190. _Vison._]
[Illustration: FIG. 191. _Canadian Otter._]
THE PEKAN, AND THE VISON.
The fur merchants of Canada have long been acquainted with the name
of _pekan_, without any knowledge of the animal to which it belongs.
Naturalists have not even mentioned its name; and travellers have
employed it to denote different animals, particularly stinkards, so
that it was impossible to derive any precise knowledge of it from their
erroneous remarks. The origin of the name of the _vison_ is no less
difficult to be traced than that of the _pekan_, and it is only said
that they belong to two different animals of America. M. Aubry, in his
cabinet, has two animals under this denomination, and from which, by
his indulgence, we have been enabled to give a sketch of their figures,
and the following description:
The pekan (_fig. 189._) so strongly resembles the marten, and the
vison (_fig. 190._) the pole-cat, that we are inclined to consider
them as varieties of those two species. They are of the same make and
proportion, have the same length of tail, quality of hair, and number
of teeth and claws; from which facts there is certainly sufficient
reason to conclude that they are merely varieties, or at least as
species approaching so near each other, that it is difficult to point
out any real difference, except that the hair of the pekan and the
vison is more soft, brown, and glossy, than that of the marten and
pole-cat; but this difference is common to them as well as to the
beaver, otter, and other animals of North America, whose fur is more
beautiful than those of the same kind of animals in the north of
Europe.
THE SABLE.
Almost every naturalist has treated of this animal without knowing any
thing more of it than its skin. M. Gmelin is the first who has given
its figure and description, from having seen two living ones at the
Governor's of Tobolski. "The sable (says he) resembles the marten in
his shape and habit of body, and the weasel in the number of his teeth:
he has six long incisive teeth, a little turned back, two long canine
teeth in the lower jaw, and very sharp small teeth in the upper; he has
very large whiskers about the mouth; and his feet are broad, and armed
with five claws. These characters were common to these two sables,
but one of them was of a dark brown, excepting the ears and throat,
where the hair was rather yellow; the other, which was smaller was of
a more yellowish tincture, its ears and throat being also much paler.
These are the colours they both have in winter, and which they change
in the spring, the former becoming of a yellowish brown, the other of
a pale yellow. I have often admired, continues M. Gmelin, the agility
of these animals. Whenever they perceived a cat they fixed themselves
in an erect posture on their hind legs, as if they were preparing for
an attack. Their inquietude in the night[C] was also remarkable, that
being the natural time for seeking their prey, whereas in the day,
especially after feeding, they generally slept an hour at a time,
during which they might be taken up, rolled about, or carried to any
distance without the smallest hazard of disturbing them."
[Footnote C: This inquietude and motion during the night is not
peculiar to sables: the same thing may be observed in ermines.]
These animals inhabit the banks of rivers in shady places, and also
the thickest woods: they leap with great ease from tree to tree, and
are said to be afraid of the sun; the rays of which tarnish the lustre
of their robes in a very short time. It has also, though erroneously,
been asserted, that they conceal themselves in holes, and remain torpid
during the winter, whereas that is the chief time for hunting them, as
their skins are then in the greatest perfection. They live on rats,
fish, and wild fruit. They have the same disagreeable odour common
to animals of this kind, and which is strongest during their rutting
season. They are most numerous in Siberia, being very few in Russia,
and still less in Lapland and other northern countries. The blackest
furs are the most esteemed.[D] The difference of this skin and which
so particularly distinguishes it from all others, consists in the fur
having no grain, but rubbed any way, is equally smooth and irresisting;
whereas the furs of all other animals, rubbed against the grain, give a
sensation of roughness from their resistance.
[Footnote D: Sonnini says that there is a variety of the sable,
entirely white; it is very rare. Another variety is equally rare, which
has a white or yellow spot under the neck.]
The sable is chiefly hunted by condemned criminals, who are sent to
Russia into these dreary and extensive forests; or by soldiers who are
sent there on purpose. These unfortunate wretches remain there many
years, and are obliged to furnish a certain number of skins annually;
they only employ a single ball to kill this animal that they may damage
the fur as little as possible; sometimes instead of fire-arms, they
make use of the cross-bow and very small pointed arrows. As the success
of this hunting requires address and great assiduity, the officers are
permitted to encourage the criminals, by allowing them to share among
themselves the surplus of the number they are obliged to procure; and
this in a few years, frequently amounts to a considerable sum.
Some naturalists have imagined the sable to be the _satherius_ of
Aristotle, and their conjecture seems to be well founded. The fineness
of the sable's fur indicates that he often goes into the water; and
some travellers assert, that the greatest numbers are found in small
islands; Aristotle calls the _satherius_ a water animal, and joins it
to the beaver and the otter. We must also presume, that when Athens was
in its height of magnificence, these beautiful skins were not unknown
to the Athenians, and that the animal which supplied them had some name
affixed to him, and we know of no one that can be applied to the sable
with greater propriety than that of _satherius_. If it be true that the
sable eats fish, and often dwells in the water, he must also have a
place among the number of amphibious animals.
THE LEMING.
Olaus Magnus is the first who has taken notice of the Leming; and
all that Gesner, Scaliger, Ziegler, Johnston, and others have said
respecting him, is extracted from that author. But Wormius, who made
very strict researches, speaks more particularly. "The leming (says
he) is of the shape of a mouse, but has a shorter tail: his body is
about five inches long, and is covered with fine hair of various
colours. The extremity of the upper part of the head, the neck and
shoulders are black, and the rest of the body is reddish, intermixed
with small black spots of various figures excepting the tail, which is
brown, and not above half an inch long. Some of them have red hairs
about the mouth, resembling whiskers, six of which are considerably
longer than the rest. The mouth is small, and the upper lip divided
like the squirrel. Two sharp, incisive, and crooked teeth, shoot from
the upper jaw, the roots of which penetrate to the orbit of the eyes:
in the lower jaw they have teeth conformable to the upper; a little
distance from these on each side are placed three grinders. The tongue
is pretty large, and extends to the extremity of the incisive teeth.
The remains of the food found in the throat of this animal, induces us
to imagine he ruminates. The eyes are little and black; the ears round
and inclining towards the neck; the legs before are shorter than those
behind; the feet are cloathed with hair, and armed with five very sharp
and crooked claws; the middle claw is the longest and the fifth is like
the spur of a cock, sometimes placed very high up the leg. The hair on
the belly is whitish, bordering a little on yellow, &c."
This animal, though its legs are very short, and its body thick,
runs very swiftly. They generally inhabit the mountains of Norway
and Lapland, from whence they sometimes descend in such numbers,
that the inhabitants look on their arrival as a terrible scourge,
which there is no possibility of preventing. They move, for the most
part, in the night, and remain still during day. It is in vain that
attempts are made to stop their progress, for though thousands are
destroyed, myriads seem to succeed. They generally move in lines about
three feet from each other, and exactly parallel; and their march
is always directed from the north-west to the south-west. Wherever
their motions are directed nothing can turn them aside; if a lake, or
river, interrupts their progress, they all take to the water and swim
over it; even a fire, or a well, does not turn them out of their line
of direction; they boldly plunge into the flames, or leap down the
well, and are sometimes seen climbing up on the other side. If they
are interrupted by a boat, while they are swimming across the river,
they mount directly up its sides, and the boatmen, who know how vain
resistance would be, calmly suffer the living torrent to pass over,
which it does without further damage; and if they meet with a stack
of hay or corn, they gnaw their way through. Happily, however, they
never enter an house to destroy the provisions, but consume every root
and vegetable that they meet, and lay waste every garden, meadow, or
field of corn that comes in their way. If a man ventures to attack
one of them, the little animal is no way intimidated by the disparity
of strength, but furiously flies up at his opponent, and wherever
he fastens, it is not easy to make him quit his hold; and when thus
attacked they have a kind of bark somewhat like that of little dogs.
An enemy so numerous and destructive, would soon render the countries
where they appear utterly uninhabitable, did it not fortunately happen,
that the same rapacity that animates them to destroy the labours of
mankind, at least impels them to destroy each other. After committing
incredible devastations, they at last separate into two armies, opposed
with deadly hatred, along the coasts of the larger lakes and rivers.
The Laplanders, who observe them thus drawn up, instead of considering
their mutual animosities as a happy riddance of the most dreadful
pest, form ominous prognostics from the manner of their engagements:
they consider their combats as a presage of war, and expect an invasion
from the Russians or Swedes. The two divisions, however, continue their
engagements, and from that time they begin to disappear, nor is it well
known what becomes of either the conquerors or the conquered. Some
suppose that they rush into the sea, others that they kill themselves,
as some are found hanging on the forked branches of trees; and others
that they are destroyed by the young spring herbage. But it is most
probable, that having consumed the vegetable productions of the
country, they then fall upon and devour each other. However this may
be, they die in such numbers, that their carcasses have been known to
infect the air, and to produce malignant disorders. They seem also to
infect the plants which they gnaw, as the cattle often die that feed in
the places where they passed. In fine weather, they go in droves into
the water, but no sooner does the wind rise, than they are all drowned.
As the inhabitants know not from whence they come, it is a vulgar
opinion that they fall from the clouds with the rain.[E]
[Footnote E: Scheffer's Hist. Lapland, Phil. Trans. &c.]
The male is generally larger, and its spots bigger than those of the
female. The flesh of the lemings is horrid food, and their skins,
though covered with a very beautiful fur, is of too little consistence
to be serviceable.
THE SEA OTTER.
Thevet says, "the Saricovienne, or Sea Otter, is found by the sides
of the river Plata; it is an amphibious animal, and lives as much in
the water as upon land; it is full as large as a cat, its skin is a
very dark grey, nearly black, and is extremely soft; its feet are
webbed like those of water fowls; and its flesh is very good, and even
delicate."
Naturalists do not seem to have been acquainted with this animal, nor
to have known that the _carigueibeju_ of Brasil, which is certainly
the same, had membranes between the toes, for Marcgrave, who has given
a description of it, totally omits this essential character. I am
also of opinion that the _guachi_, mentioned by Gumilla, which is a
species of otter in South America, is the same as the saricovienne.
Marcgrave and Desmarchais describe it to be as big as a middling sized
dog: that the top of its head is round, and its nose long; that its
teeth and whiskers resemble those of the cat; that it has small black
eyes, round ears, five toes on each foot, with a kind of thumb shorter
than the others, and all armed with brown claws; that its hair, which
is short and soft, is black on the body, and has a white spot under
the chin; that its voice is somewhat like that of a young dog; and
notwithstanding it lives principally on crabs and fish, its flesh is
very good, and its skin makes an excellent fur.
THE CANADIAN OTTER.
This Otter, (_fig. 191._) which is larger than ours, and which must
be a native of the north of Europe, as well as of Canada, occasioned
me to enquire whether it was not the same animal as that called by
Aristotle the _latax_, which, he says, is much larger and stronger than
the common otter. But his observations do not entirely agree with the
animal in question, and therefore as it perfectly resembles the common
otter in other respects, I judged that it was not a particular species,
but only a simple variety; and as the Greeks, especially Aristotle,
have taken great care not to give different names, except to distinct
species, we are therefore convinced that the _latax_ is another animal.
Besides, as the otters, like the beavers, are commonly larger, and
their hair finer, and of a more beautiful black in America than in
Europe; this Canadian otter ought, in fact, to be larger and blacker
than our otter. But in attempting to discover what the _latax_ of
Aristotle might be, I conjectured that it was the same animal as Belon
calls the _marine wolf_.
Aristotle mentions six amphibious animals, of which only three are
known to us, namely, the seal, the beaver, and the otter; the three
others, the _latax_, the _satherion_, and the _satyrion_, still remain
unknown, because their names are only mentioned without any description
of them. In this case, as in all those where we cannot draw any direct
induction from a knowledge of the object, we must have recourse to
the mode of exclusion: but we cannot make use of that mode with any
success, unless we are nearly acquainted with every thing; when that
is the case, we can conclude a negative from the positive, and this
negative hence becomes a positive fact. For example, I believe that by
long study, I have attained a knowledge of almost every quadruped. I
know that Aristotle could not have had any knowledge of those peculiar
to the continent of America. I also know those which are amphibious,
and among these I separate those that belong to America, as the tapir,
the cabiai, the ondatra, &c. and then there remains only the amphibious
animals of our own continent, namely, the hippopotamus, the walrus,
or sea-cow, the sea-wolf of Belon, the beaver, the otter, the sable,
the water-rat, the Muscovy musk-rat, the water shrew-mouse, and we may
include the ichneumon, which some have looked upon as an amphibious
animal, and styled it the Egyptian otter. I retrench from this number
the walrus, or sea-cow, the seal, or sea-cow, which being only met with
in the northern seas, was not known to Aristotle; I also retrench the
hippopotamus, the water-rat, and the ichneumon, because he speaks of
them in another part of his work by their proper names; and I likewise
retrench the seal, the beaver, and the otter, which are well known,
and the water shrew-mouse, because it is too much like the land one
to have received a different name. There then remains the sea-wolf
of Belon, the sable, and the Muscovy musk-rat, for the _latax_, the
_satherion_, and the _satyrion_. Of these three animals, the sea-wolf
of Belon is the only one that is larger than the otter, therefore it
alone can represent the latax; consequently the sable and the Muscovy
musk-rat, must represent the _satherion_ and the _satyrion_. It must,
however, be perceived that these conjectures, which I believe to be
well founded, are not among the number which time can elucidate,
unless some Greek manuscripts shall be discovered which are unknown
at present, where these names are made use of, and explained by new
indications.
THE SEAL, THE WALRUS, AND THE MANATI.
Seal, Walrus, and Manati, are rather generic denominations than
specific names. Under that of the Seal, we shall comprehend, first,
the _phoca_ of the ancients, which is probably the same animal as the
seal; 2. The common seal, which we call the _sea-calf_; 3. The great
seal, of which Mr. Parsons has given a figure and description in the
Philosophical Transactions, No. 496; and 4. The very large seal, which
is called the _sea-lion_, the figure and description of which is given
in Anson's Voyages.
By the _walrus_ we understand those animals commonly called _sea-cows_,
or _sea-horses_. We know of two species of this animal, one found only
in the northern seas, and the other only in the southern, which is
called _dugan_ or _Indian walrus_. And lastly, under that of _manati_,
we comprehend those called _lamantans_, or _sea-oxen_, in St. Domingo,
and other parts of South America, as well as that of Senegal, and other
parts of the coast of Africa, and which seem to be only varieties of
the American species.
The seal and the walrus approach nearer to quadrupeds than to cetaceous
animals, because they have a kind of feet. But the manatis, which have
only two before, are more of the cetaceous tribes than the quadrupeds.
But they differ from every other animal by the following striking
character. They are the only animals that can equally live in air
and water, and consequently the only ones we can properly term
_amphibious_. In man, and the other terrestrial viviparous animals,
the _foramen ovale_ of the heart, which permits the foetus to live
without respiration, is shut at the moment of its birth, and remains
closed during life. In these, on the contrary, it is always open,
notwithstanding the females bring forth their young on land; and their
respiration begins and operates immediately after birth, as it does in
every other animal. By means of this perpetual aperture in the septum,
subsisting and permiting the communication of the blood from the _vena
cava_ to the _aorta_, these animals have the advantage of breathing or
not at pleasure. This singular property is common to all three; but
each has peculiar faculties, which we shall notice as far as possible,
in the history of the different species.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 192._Seal._]
[Illustration: FIG. 193. _Walrus._ FIG. 194. _Manati._]
THE SEAL.
The Seal (_fig. 192._) in general has a round head, like the human
species; a broad muzzle like the otter; eyes large and elevated; little
or no external ears, having only two auditory passages on the sides of
the head; whiskers about its mouth; teeth somewhat resembling those of
the wolf; the tongue forked at the point; the body, hands, and feet,
covered with a short and bristly hair; no arms but two membranes, like
hands, with five fingers terminated by as many claws; no legs but two
feet exactly like the hands, except being larger and turned backwards,
as if designed to unite with a very short tail, which they accompany
on each side; the body is thickest at the breast from whence it tapers
down to the tail like a fish. He is so strange an animal that he
appears fictitious, and has served as a model for the poets to form
their tritons, syrens, and other sea deities, whom they feigned to have
the head of a man, the body of a quadruped, and the tail of a fish.
In fact, he seems to reign superior in the mute empire of the sea, by
his voice, figure, and intelligence, which he possesses equally with
any land animal; he is so far above the order of fishes, that he seems
not only to belong to a different order of beings, but to a different
world. Hence though of a nature very distant from that of our domestic
animals, yet he seems susceptible of a kind of education. He is reared
by putting him often in water; he is taught to give a salute with his
head and his voice; he will come when called, and he gives many other
signs of intelligence and docility.
His brain is proportionally larger than in man: his sensations are
as perfect, and his intellects as active, as those of any quadruped;
both are strongly marked in his docility, his social qualities, his
strong instinct for the female, his great attention towards his young,
and by the expressive modulation of his voice, which is superior to
that of any other animal. His body is likewise firm and large; he is
very strong and armed with sharp teeth and claws. He also enjoys many
particular and singular advantages. He can, with perfect ease, endure
heat or cold; he feeds indifferently on grass, flesh, or fish; and
he can equally live on ice, land, or in the wafer. This animal, with
the walrus alone, deserves the name of _amphibious_. They alone have
the _foramen ovale_ open, consequently they are the only animals who
can exist without respiration, the elements of air and water being
equally agreeable. The otter and the beaver cannot properly be termed
amphibious, as the air is their real element, for not having this
aperture through the septum of the heart, they cannot remain any length
of time under the water, but are obliged to quit it, or raise their
heads out of it in order to respire.
But these great advantages are counter-balanced by imperfections still
greater. The seal may be said to be deprived of the use of his limbs,
as his arms, thighs, and legs are almost entirely shut up within his
body, while nothing appears without but his hands and feet, which are,
it is true, furnished with five fingers or toes, but which are scarcely
moveable, being united by a strong membrane, so that they might more
properly be called fins than hands and feet, being more adapted for
the purpose of swimming than walking. Besides the hind feet are turned
backwards, therefore entirely useless upon land, so that when the
animal is obliged to move, he drags himself forward like a reptile, and
with efforts much more painful, for as he cannot bend himself in an
arch, like the serpent, to obtain the support of different parts, and
so advance by the reaction of the ground, he would remain like a lump
on the earth if it were not for his hands and tail, and with which he
seizes any thing within his reach with such dexterity that he drags
himself up the steepest shores, rocks, and even shoals of ice, however
steep or slippery. By this method he moves with a much greater degree
of swiftness than could be expected, and often, though wounded, escapes
the pursuit of the hunters.
The seal is a social animal, at least great numbers generally frequent
the same places. Their natural climate is the north, but they live in
the temperate and even hot countries, for they are seen on the shores
of almost all the seas of Europe and even in the Mediterranean; they
are found also in the southern seas of Africa and America; but they
are infinitely more common and more numerous in the northern seas of
Asia, Europe, and America. This species varies in size, colour, and
figure, according to the difference of climates. We have seen some of
these animals alive, and many of their skins have been sent to us; out
of these we have chosen two for our present subject; the first is the
common seal of our European sea, of which there are many varieties. We
have seen one, the proportions of whose body seemed to differ from any
other, its neck being shorter, its body longer, and its claws larger;
but these differences are not sufficient to constitute a distinct
species. The second is the seal of the Mediterranean and southern seas,
which we presume to be the _phoca_ of the ancients, and a distinct
species, for it differs from the others in the quality and colour
of the hair, which is flowing, and almost black, whereas that of the
common kind is grey, and of a bristly nature. Its teeth and ears are
also different, for it has a very small external ear, which the other
has not; its incisive teeth are likewise terminated with two points,
while the teeth of the other are smooth and sharp, like those of the
dog, wolf, and other quadrupeds. Its arms, or fins, are also situated
lower, that is to say, more backward. Nevertheless, these discrepancies
are, perhaps, only varieties depending on the climate, and not specific
differences; especially as in places where the seals abound, there are
numbers of them found larger and smaller, thicker and thinner, and of
different colours according to their sex and age.
From a similarity, which appeared at first sight but trivial, and by
some fugitive accounts, we were induced to suppose this second seal, or
small seal, was the _phoca_ of the ancients. We were informed that the
one we had was brought from India, and very probably it came from the
Levant. It was an adult, as it had all its teeth. It was about a fifth
less than the full-grown seals of our ocean, and about two-thirds less
than those of the Frozen Sea, for it was not above two feet five inches
in length, while that described by Mr. Parsons was seven feet and a
half long, though not arrived at its full growth, as it wanted several
teeth. Now the characters given by the ancients of their phoca do not
denote so large an animal, but agree with the small seal, which they
often compare to the otter and beaver.
There is another circumstance mentioned by the ancients as belonging
to the phoca, which, though false, could never have been intimated
as belonging to our seals, or those of the northern seas. They say
that the phoca's hair waves like the sea, and by a natural sympathy
follows its motions, lying backward when it flows and forward when it
ebbs, and that this remarkable effect remains long after the skin is
separated from the animal. Now this could never be attributed to our
seals, nor to those of the northern seas, since the hair of both is
short and stiff; while, on the contrary, it rather agrees with that
of the small seal, which is longer, and of a more supple nature than
the hair of the common kind. Besides, Cardan positively asserts, that
this property, which had been regarded as fabulous, is found to be
a fact in India. Without placing more dependance on this assertion
of Cardan's than it deserves, we must allow it indicates that this
circumstance belongs to the Indian seal, though possibly it is nothing
more than an electric phenomenon, the effects of which the ancients
being ignorant might ascribe it to the flowing and ebbing of the sea.
However this may be, the above reasons are a sufficient foundation
to presume, that the small seal is the phoca of the ancients; and
there is also great reason to conclude, that it is the same as that
M. Rondelatius calls the _Mediterranean phoca_, the body of which,
according to him, is much longer and smaller, in proportion, than our
seal. The great seal, described by Mr. Parsons, and which, probably,
came from the northern seas, seems to be a different species from the
other two, for, notwithstanding it had scarcely any teeth, it was as
big again, in all its dimensions, as the common kind. Mr. Parsons, as
Mr. Klein judiciously remarks, speaks a great deal on the subject of
this animal in a few words, and has given the following observations in
the Philosophical Transactions, No. 469, p. 383, 386.
"A sea-calf was shewn at Charing-cross, London, in the month of
February, 1742-3. The figures given by Aldrovandus, Johnston, and
others, being designed in profile, lead us into two errors. 1st. They
make the legs apparent, though they are not visible externally in
any position the animal is placed; and, secondly, the hind feet are
represented like two fins, whereas they are two real feet, webbed
like those of a water-fowl, each having five toes, composed of three
articulations, and ending with darkish-coloured claws. The claws on
the fore-feet are very large and broad, nearly like those of a mole,
and seem to be designed for the purposes of crawling, and partly for
swimming, as between each toe there is a narrow membrane; but the
membranes of the hind feet are much larger, and only serve to row
the animal along when in the water. It was a female, and died in the
morning of the 16th of February, 1742-3. The hairs that were about
its mouth were of a horny and transparent substance; its stomach,
intestines, bladder, kidneys, ureters, diaphragm, lungs, great
blood-vessels, and the parts of generation, were like those of a cow:
the spleen was two feet long, four inches broad, and exceedingly thin;
the liver was composed of six lobes, each of which was long and thin,
like the spleen; the gall bladder was very small; the heart long, and
of a soft texture, having a large foramen ovale, and the fleshy parts
very considerable. In the lower stomach were about four pounds weight
of sharp and angular pieces of flint, which seems as if the animal had
swallowed them for the purpose of grinding its food. This animal is
viviparous, and suckles its young by the mamilla, like quadrupeds, and
its flesh is firm and muscular. Although it had attained seven feet and
a half in length, yet it was but young, as it had scarcely any teeth;
and it had four small holes regularly placed about the navel, which
were the preceding signs of four teats to appear hereafter."
Thus it appears there are three kinds of seals, differing from each
other. The small black seal of India and the Levant; the common seal
of our seas; and the great seal of the northern ocean. To the first
of these, therefore, we must refer all that the ancients have written
about the _phoca_. Aristotle was acquainted with this animal, for he
has described it of an ambiguous nature, an intermediate creature
between aquatic and terrestrial animals; that is, an imperfect
quadruped, having no external teats for suckling its young, and only
very apparent auditory passages; that its tongue is forked, and has a
small tail resembling that of a stag. This entirely agrees with the
seal; but he is deceived in affirming that its has no gall-bladder. Mr.
Parsons, indeed says, that the gall-bladder of the great seal which he
describes, was very small; but M. Daubenton found a gall-bladder in
the seal which he dissected proportionable to the size of the liver;
and the gentlemen of the Academy of Sciences, who also met with a
gall-bladder in the seal which they dissected do not speak of its being
remarkably small.
Aristotle could not have had any knowledge of the great seal of the
Frozen Sea, since in the time he lived all the north of Europe and
of Asia was unknown, The Romans considered Gaul and Germany as their
north, and the Greeks knew still less of the animals belonging to this
part of the world; it is, therefore, very probable, that when Aristotle
speaks of the _phoca_ as a very common animal, he only means the
Mediterranean seal.
These three species have many properties in common with each other;
the females bring forth in winter, and place their young upon some
sand-bank, rock, or small island. When they suckle their young they
sit upon their hind legs, and continue to nourish them in this manner
for twelve or fifteen days, after which she brings them to the water,
accustoms them to swim, and to search for their food; she carries them
on her back when they are fatigued. As each litter does not consist of
above two or three, her cares are not much divided, and the education
of her little ones is soon completed. In fact, these animals are very
sagacious and docile; they understand and naturally assist each other
in dangers. The young ones distinguish their mother among a numerous
troop; and are perfectly obedient to her call. We are unacquainted
with their time of gestation; but if we judge of it from that of
their growth, the length of their lives, and the size of the animal,
it must be many months; the time from their birth till they attain
their full growth being many years, the length of their lives must be
proportionably long. I am even inclined to believe that these animals
live upwards of a hundred years, for we know that cetaceous animals, in
general, live much longer than quadrupeds; and as the seal is the link
between both it, ought to participate of the nature of the first, and
consequently live much longer than the last.
The voice of the seal may be compared to the barking of an angry dog.
When young, they have a shrill note, somewhat like the mewing of a cat.
Those that are taken early from their dams mew continually, and often
die of hunger sooner than take the food that is offered them. They
bark at and endeavour to bite those who injure them, and are more of a
courageous than timid nature. Instead of being terrified at thunder
and lightning, it seems to delight them; they generally come on shore
in tempests and storms, and even quit their icy abodes to avoid the
shock of the waves; at such times they sport in great numbers along
the shore: the tremendous conflict seems to divert, and the heavy
rains that fall, to enliven them. They have naturally a disagreeable
scent, and which is smelt at a great distance, when there are great
numbers together. When pursued they often drop their excrements, which
are of a yellow colour, and of a very abominable scent. They have a
prodigious quantity of blood, and being also loaded with fat, they are,
consequently, very dull and heavy. They usually sleep a great deal, and
very sound, and are fond of taking their repose in the sun on flakes of
ice, or sides of rocks, and they may be approached very nigh without
being disturbed, which is the usual method of taking them. They are
very seldom secured with fire-arms, for they do not immediately die,
even if shot in the head, but plunge into the sea, and are entirely
lost to the hunter; therefore the general method is to surprise them
when asleep, or at a distance from the sea, and knock them on the head
with clubs. "They are not easily killed, and are a long time dying
(says an eye-witness), for although mortally wounded, their blood
nearly exhausted, and even stripped of their skins, yet they still
continue alive; and indeed it is a shocking sight to see them in this
condition wallowing and rolling about in their blood. These remarks
were made on an animal we killed, about eight feet long; after it was
skinned, and deprived of the greater part of its fat, yet it attempted
to bite, notwithstanding they had given him many powerful blows over
the head and nose. It even seized a cutlass with as much vigour as if
it had not been wounded; after which we pierced it through the heart
and liver, from whence as much blood flowed as is contained in a young
ox[F]."
[Footnote F: Recueil des Voyages du Nord. tom. ii. p. 117, &c.]
The hunting, or perhaps, to speak more properly, the fishing of these
animals is not very difficult, and is attended with great profit,
the flesh being good food, and the skin exceedingly serviceable. The
Americans fill them with air, and make a kind of raft, or small boats
of them: their fat yields a clear and much sweeter oil than that drawn
from the porpoise, or other cetaceous animals.
To these three kinds of seals already mentioned we may, perhaps, add
a fourth, described in Anson's voyages by the name of the _sea-lion_.
These are found in great numbers on the Magellanic coasts, and at the
island of Juan Fernandes, in the South Sea. The sea-lion resembles
our seal, which is very common in the same latitudes, but it is much
larger, being from eleven to eighteen feet long, and from eight to
eleven in circumference, when it has acquired its full growth. They are
so fat that when the skin is taken off, the blubber is about a foot
thick all round the body, and from a single animal more than ninety
gallons of oil may be drawn. They are, at the same time, very full of
blood, and which, when deeply wounded, springs out with amazing force.
Upon the throat of one of these animals being cut, two hogsheads of
blood were taken out, besides what then remained in its body. Their
skins are covered with a short hair of a brownish colour, but blackish
on the tail and feet. Their toes are united by a membrane, which does
not reach to their extremity, and each of them are terminated by a
claw. The sea-lion differs from the common seal not only in its size
and bulk, but also by other characters. The male has a kind of thick
crest, or trunk, hanging from the end of its upper jaw, about five or
six inches long. This character is not seen in the females, and forms
a very striking distinction between them. The strong males collect
together a flock of females, and permit no other male to approach them.
These animals are truly amphibious; they remain all the summer in the
sea, and go upon land in the winter; at which season the females bring
forth, but never produce above one or two at a litter, which they
suckle.
The sea-lions, while they are on land, feed on the herbage which grows
by the sides of the sea. They are of a very heavy and drowsy nature,
and delight to sleep in the mire. Though very indolent and difficult
to waken, yet at those times they commonly fix some as centinels near
the place where they sleep; and it is said, that these centinels give
loud warnings when any danger is near. Their voices are very loud and
of various tones; sometimes grunting like hogs, and sometimes neighing
like horses. The males often fight about the females and wound one
another desperately with their teeth. The flesh of these animals is
not disagreeable to eat; particularly the tongue, which is as good as
that of the ox. They are very easily killed, as they cannot defend
themselves, nor fly from their enemies: they are so exceedingly heavy,
that they move with great difficulty, and turn themselves with still
greater. Those that hunt them have only to guard against coming too
near their teeth, which are very strong, and with which they inflict
deadly wounds.
By comparing other observations and accounts, and from the conclusions
which may be drawn from them, the sea-lion of South America, appears
to be nearly the same animal as that found on the northern coasts of
the same continent. The large seal of Canada, spoken of by Denis, by
the name of the sea-wolf, and which he distinguishes from the common
seals, may possibly be of the same species as these sea-lions. "Their
young, says this author, are bigger and longer at their birth than
our largest hogs." Now it is certain that our seals are never of that
size, even when full-grown. The Mediterranean seal, or the _phoca_ of
the ancients, is still less; therefore there only remains the seal Mr.
Parsons has described, which agrees with that mentioned by Denis. Mr.
Parsons does not say whence this great seal was brought: but whether it
came from the north of Europe, or from America, it might be the same
as the sea-wolf of Denis, or the sea-lion of Anson, for it appears to
be of the same size, since though not nearly full-grown it measured
seven feet in length. Besides the size, there is the most apparent
difference between the sea-lion and the seal, namely, the male of the
first has a large crest on its upper jaw. Now Mr. Parsons did not see
the male; he only described the female, which had no crest, and which
perfectly resembled the female sea-lion, mentioned by Anson. To these
similarities Parsons adds another still more precise; he says, that the
great seal which he saw had a stomach and intestines like those of a
cow; and the sea-lion also mentioned in Anson's Voyages, is described
as an animal which feeds on grass during the whole summer. Hence it is
very probable that these two animals are formed alike, or rather they
are the same animals, and very different from other seals, who have but
one stomach, and which live entirely upon fish.
Rogers had spoken of this animal nearly in the same manner as is done
in Anson's Voyages. "The sea-lion (says he) is a very strange creature,
and of a prodigious bulk; I have seen some above twenty feet long,
which could not weigh less than four thousand pounds. Many of them were
sixteen feet long and must weigh two thousand pounds; notwithstanding
which, I was surprised at the great quantity of oil drawn from these
animals. Its shape is nearly like the sea-calf; but its skin is
as thick as that of an ox; the hair is short and bristly; the head
disproportionally large; the mouth very wide; the eyes of a monstrous
size, and the nose, which resembles that of the lion, has terrible
whiskers, formed of such exceedingly stiff and bristly hair, that they
might be used for tooth-picks. Towards the latter end of June, these
animals go upon the island of Juan Fernandes to bring forth their
young; which they do at about a gun-shot distance from the edge of the
sea; there they remain till the end of September, without moving out of
the place, and without taking any nourishment: at least, we did not see
them eat. I observed some which remained eight days in the same spot,
and which would not have stirred then had they not been frightened by
the report of a pistol. At the island of _Lobos_ in the South Sea, we
likewise saw several sea-lions, but a much greater number of seals."
These observations of Woods and Rogers, which agree with what is said
in Anson's Voyages, seem to be further proofs of these animals living
upon grass when they are on land; for there is but little probability
that they should exist three months without any food, and especially
during the time they suckle their young. We find in the Collection of
Voyages to the South Seas, many remarks respecting these animals;
but neither the descriptions nor circumstances appear to be exact:
for example, it is said, that in the Straits of Magellan, there are
sea-wolves of such an enormous size, that their skins, when stretched
out, were six and thirty feet wide; which is evidently an exaggeration.
It is also said, that on the two islands of Port Desire, those animals
resemble lions in the anterior part of their body, having a very long
mane on their heads, necks, and shoulders. This is a still greater
exaggeration; for the sea-lions have only a little more hair on the
neck than on the rest of the body, but which is not above an inch in
length. It is likewise said that there are some of these animals above
eighteen feet long, many about fourteen, but most commonly not above
five. This might induce us to imagine, that there are two species, the
one much larger than the other, because the author does not say whether
this difference proceeded from the difference in their ages, which,
however, was necessary in order to prevent error. "These animals (says
Coreal) keep their mouths always open. It is with great difficulty
that two men can kill one of these animals even with a strong lance,
which is the best weapon that can be made use of for that purpose. One
female suckles four or five young ones, and beats away any other young
that comes towards her; from which circumstance I conclude they bring
forth four or five young ones at a litter." This presumption seems
well founded; for the great seal, described by Mr. Parsons, had four
teats, situate in such a manner as to form a square about the navel. I
thought it necessary to collect every circumstance relative to these
animals, which are but little known; and it is much to be wished that
some skilful traveller would give us a proper description of them,
and particularly of their internal parts, as the stomach, intestines,
&c. for, if we could rely on the testimonies of travellers, we should
believe that the sea-lions belong to the class of ruminating animals;
that they have several stomachs, and that, consequently, they are of a
far distant species from the seal, or sea-calf, which certainly has but
one stomach, and must be placed among the carnivorous animals.
THE WALRUS, MORSE, OR SEA-COW.
The name of sea-cow, by which the walrus (_fig. 193._) is most
generally known, has been very wrongly applied,[G] since the animal it
denotes has not the least resemblance to a cow: the denomination of
sea-elephant, which others have given it is much better imagined, as
it is founded on a singular and very apparent character. The walrus,
like the elephant, has two large ivory tusks which shoot from the upper
jaw; and its head would entirely resemble that of the elephant if it
had a trunk; the walrus, however, not only wants that instrument, which
serves the elephant as an arm and hand, but it is deprived of the use
of its arms and legs; those members being, like those of the seal, shut
up within the skin, so that nothing appears outwardly but its hands
and feet. Its body is long and tapering, thickest towards the neck,
decreasing by degrees, and is entirely covered with a short hair. The
fingers, or toes, of the hands and feet, are covered with a membrane,
and terminated by short and sharp-pointed claws. On each side of
the mouth are large bristles in the form of whiskers; the tongue is
hollowed, and the concha of the ears are wanting, so that, excepting
the two great tusks, and the want of the cutting teeth both above and
below, the walrus perfectly resembles the seal, only being much larger
and stronger; the walrus is commonly from twelve to sixteen feet in
length, and eight or nine in circumference; whereas the largest seals
are not more than seven or eight feet. The former generally frequent
the same places as the seals are known to reside in, and they are
almost always found together. They have the same habitudes in every
respect: but there are fewer varieties of the walrus than of the seal;
and they are more attached to one particular climate, being rarely
found except in the northern seas, so that the seal might be known to
the ancients, but the walrus could not.
[Footnote G: Perhaps this name, as well as that of _sea-calf_, has
been given because the one and the other have a cry which very much
resembles the lowing of a cow and of a calf. _Ipsis_ (says Pliny,
speaking of the sea-calf) _in somne mugitus, unde nomen vituli_.]
Most travellers who have visited the northern seas of Asia, Europe,
and America, have mentioned this animal; but Zorgdrager seems to have
spoken most clearly on this subject, for which reason I shall subjoin
a translation of his remarks, which were communicated to me by the
Marquis de Montmirail.
"There was formerly great plenty of the walrus and seals in the bays
of Horisont and Kloch, but at present there are very few. Both of them
quit the water in the summer, and resort to the neighbouring plains,
where they are sometimes seen in troops of from eighty to two hundred,
particularly the walrus, who will remain there several days together,
till hunger obliges them to return to the sea. This animal externally
resembles the seal, but he is stronger and much larger.[H] Like the
seals they have five toes to each paw, but their claws are shorter,
and their head shorter and rounder. The skin of the walrus is an inch
thick, wrinkled, and covered with very short hair of different colours.
His upper jaw is armed with two tusks, about half an ell, or an ell in
length, which are hollow at the root, and become larger as the animal
grows in years. Some of them are found to have but one tusk, the other
being torn out in fighting with each other, or falling out through
age. This ivory generally sells for a greater price than that of the
elephant, as it is of a more compact and harder substance. His mouth
is like that of the ox, and furnished with hairs which are hollow,
pointed, and about the thickness of a straw. Above the mouth are two
nostrils, through which these animals spout water like a whale, without
however making much noise. Their eyes are red, sparking and inflamed
during the summer, at which season the water making too powerful an
impression on them, they stay more willingly on shore than at any other
time. They are in great numbers about Spitzbergen. They are killed
with lances, and the profit derived from their teeth and fat fully
repays the trouble; for their oil is almost as much valued as that
of the whale. Their two teeth are worth as much as all the oil they
produce, and are preferred even to ivory. An ordinary sized tooth will
weigh three pounds, and in which case the two will sell for eighteen
florins, about the value of half a ton of oil, which is commonly drawn
from one of them; so that the animal may be said to be worth six and
thirty florins. Formerly great numbers of these animals were seen upon
land; but the vessels which every year resort to those seas for the
whale fishery, have so frightened them, that they are now retired to
more sequestered places; and those that remain no longer go on shore
in troops, but either continue in the water, or disperse themselves
on different parts of the ice. When the hunter comes near a walrus,
whether in the water, or on the ice, he darts a very strong harpoon
at him, which, though made expressly for the purpose, often slips over
his hard and thick skin; but if it penetrate, they haul the animal
with the rope annexed towards the boat, kill him with a very sharp and
strong lance, and afterwards tow him to the nearest shore or flat piece
of ice; there flay him, and throw his skin away, as it is of no manner
of use[I]hey then separate the teeth with a hatchet, or sometimes
cut off the head and boil it to prevent the teeth from receiving any
injury; the blubber being cut into long slices, is barrelled up and
carried on board the vessels. The walrus is generally heavier than the
ox, and as difficult to pursue as the whale; the skin of the latter is
also more easily pierced, for a strong and sharp lance is often darted
several times at the walrus without penetrating his thick skin. For
this reason they always endeavour to wound him in those parts where the
skin appears tight, and even take aim at his eyes; the animal, obliged
by this motion to turn his head, exposes his breast or throat to the
hunter, who immediately strikes in that part, and draws the lance out
again as quick as possible, for fear the animal should seize it with
his teeth and wound those that attack him either with his teeth or the
lance, which sometimes happens. However, an attack seldom lasts long
on the ice, for the walrus, whether wounded or not, soon plunges into
the sea; consequently the hunters rather attack him upon land. These
animals are now rarely found but in the least frequented countries, as
the isle of Moffen, at the back of Worland, in the neighbourhood of
Horisont and Kloch bays, and other secluded and more distant places;
they also take the precaution to sleep on banks of sand, where ships
dare not approach them. Those that are met with, instructed by the
persecutions they have so often experienced, are so much on their
guard, that they always keep pretty near to the water, and immediately
plunge in on being approached. I experienced this fact myself, having
met with a troop of thirty or forty on the great sand bank at the back
of Worland, some of which were quite close to the water, and others
at no great distance from it. We waited some hours before we went
ashore, in hopes they would advance further on the plain, but as this
stratagem did not succeed according to our wishes, we went on board
our boats, and landed to the right and left of them; but we had no
sooner set foot on shore, than they all plunged into the water, and
dived to the bottom, therefore the most we were able to accomplish was
the wounding of a few. Before these animals were so greatly persecuted,
they advanced a good way upon the land, so that when it was high tide,
they were at a great distance from the sea; and at low water being at
a still greater, they were easily attacked. The hunters would then
land, and march up in their front to cut off their retreat to the sea,
and which they permitted with indifference; when thus assailed, each
hunter generally killed one before they could regain the water; and
after they had killed several, they made a kind of barrier of their
dead bodies, leaving some of the men in ambush to slay those that
remained; and in this manner three or four hundred were often killed.
The prodigious quantity of bones spread over the shores, sufficiently
prove how numerous these animals were in former times. When wounded
they become extremely furious. They sometimes seize the lances, and
break them in pieces with their teeth; or tear them out of the hands of
their enemies, and at last, full of rage, put their head betwixt their
paws, or fins, and in this manner roll into the sea. When there is a
great number of them together, they are so bold as to attack the boats
that pursue them, bite the boats with their teeth, and exert all their
strength to pierce or overturn them."
[Footnote H: This must be understood only of the common seal, for the
large species of this animal is considerably greater in its dimensions
than the walrus.]
[Footnote I: Apparently, Zorgdrager was ignorant that a very good hide
is made of the skin of this animal. I have seen coach-harnesses made
of them which were very firm and tough. _Hist. of Greenland_; and
even at present the skins of the walrus form an important part of the
exportation from the coast of Labrador.]
By adding to these observations of Zorgdrager those which are in the
Collection of Voyages to the North, and what are scattered in other
accounts, we have a tolerably complete history of this animal. By these
relations we find that this species was formerly much more diffused
than at present; they were found in the seas of the temperate zones,
in the Gulph of Canada, on the coasts of Acadia, &c. but they are at
present confined to the frozen zones, and even in those there are but
few in any of those parts which are frequented. There are very few
in the Frozen Seas of Europe, and still less in those of Greenland,
Davis's Straights, and other parts of North America, the whale fishery
having disturbed and driven them away. Towards the end of the 16th
century the inhabitants of St. Malo found them in great numbers in
the Ramée islands; and it is not a hundred years since the merchants
of Port-Royal thought it worth sending to Cape Sable and Cape Fourchu
to hunt these animals, but they have now entirely forsaken those
climates, and are only to be found in great numbers in the frozen
sea of Asia, from the mouth of the Oby to the eastern point of that
continent; they are seldom seen in the temperate, and those found in
the torrid zone are of a different species; they seem averse from the
southern seas, and therefore are not met with towards the south pole,
although the great and small seals of the north are there in great
plenty.
We find, however, that the walrus can live, at least for some time, in
a temperate climate. Edward Worst speaks of having seen one alive in
England, which was three months old; that it was put in water for a
short time only each day, and that it went upon the ground. He does not
say the heat of the air incommoded it, but, on the contrary, that when
it was touched it had the appearance of a robust and furious animal,
and that it had a very strong respiration through its nostrils. This
young walrus was about the size of a calf, and very much like a seal.
Its head was round, its eyes large, its nostrils flat and black, which
it opened and shut at pleasure. It had no external ears, but only two
auditory passages. The mouth was small, and the upper jaw was furnished
with whiskers of thick, rough, and cartilaginous hairs; the lower
jaw was triangular, the tongue thick and short, and each side of the
mouth armed on the inside with flat teeth. The feet were broad, and the
hind part of the body perfectly resembled that of a seal. It might be
rather said to crawl with this hind part than to walk; the fore-feet
were turned forward, and the hind ones backward; they were all divided
into five toes, and covered with a strong membrane. The skin was thick,
hard, and covered with a short, soft, ash-coloured hair. This animal
grunted like a boar, and sometimes cried with a deep and strong voice.
It was brought from Nova Zembla, and had not any tusks, but on the
upper jaw there appeared two knobs, from whence in time they would
arise. It was fed with a sort of gruel made of barley or oat-meal. It
followed its master when he offered it food, but always with a seeming
reluctance, as it grunted all the time, and would sometimes growl at
him with a degree of fury.
This account, which gives a tolerably just idea of the walrus, evinces
that it can live in a temperate climate; however there is no appearance
of its being able to endure a strong heat, nor of its having ever
passed from one pole to the other. Several travellers have spoken of
certain sea-cows they saw in India, but those were of a different
species. The walrus is easily distinguished by its long tusks, a
character which we find peculiar to that and the elephant.
The genital member of the male has a large bone like the whale. The
female brings forth in winter upon land, or on the shoals of ice, and
seldom produces more than one, which when born is about the size of
a hog of a year old. We do not know how long this animal goes with
young, but if we judge by the time of their growth and size, we must
suppose it to be upwards of nine months. The walrus cannot continue in
the water for a long time together, but is obliged to come on shore to
suckle its young, and for other occasions. When they are obliged to
climb up steep shores, or large pieces of ice, they make use of their
teeth and hands to hold by, and drag along the heavy masses of their
bodies. They are said to feed upon the shell-fish which are at the
bottom of the sea, and to grub them up with their strong tusks. Others
assert that they live on a sea-herb with broad leaves, and that they
eat neither flesh nor fish. But I imagine all these opinions have but
a weak foundation, it being probable that the walrus, like the seal,
lives on prey, especially on herrings, and other small fish, for he
does not eat at all when upon land, and it is chiefly hunger which
obliges him to return to the sea.
THE DUGON.
The Dugon is an animal which inhabits the African and Indian seas.
We have only seen two heads on this subject, which resembled that of
the walrus more than any other animal. It had, like that, very deep
sockets for the teeth, about the length of half a foot, which might
more properly be termed cutting teeth than tusks. They extend not in a
direct manner from the mouth, like those of the walrus, but are much
shorter and thinner, besides they are situated close to each other
in the fore part of the jaw, whereas the tusks of the walrus leave a
considerable space between them, and are placed at the side of the
upper jaw. The grinders of the dugon likewise differ in number, shape
and position, from those of the walrus, therefore we make not the least
doubt but they are animals of different species. Some travellers have
confounded the dugon with the sea-lion. Inigo de Biervillas says,
that a sea-lion was killed near the Cape of Good Hope, which measured
ten feet in length, and four in circumference. Its head was like that
of a calf about a year old; it had a bristly beard; its eyes large
and frightful; its ears short, its feet very broad, and its legs so
exceedingly short, that its belly dragged upon the ground: he adds,
that it had two tusks about half a foot long. This last, however, does
not agree with the sea-lion, which has no tusks, but teeth nearly
resembling those of the seal; and this difference made me imagine it
was not a sea-lion but the animal we call the _dugon_. Other travellers
seem to have indicated it by the name of the sea-bear: Spilsberg
and Mandelso relate, "that there are animals on the island of St.
Elizabeth, on the coast of Africa, which should rather be denominated
sea-bears than sea-wolves, as their hair, colour, and head, greatly
resemble those of that animal, the snout only being more pointed; that
they also move like the bear, except dragging their hind legs after
them; that these amphibious animals have a frightful appearance, and
do not shew any fear at the sight of man: their teeth are so very
strong as to bite through the shaft of a javelin; and although their
hind legs appear crippled, yet they move with such swiftness that it
is very difficult to come up with them." Le Guat speaks of having seen
a sea-cow, of a reddish colour, near the Cape of Good Hope; its body
was round and thick, its eyes full and large, long tusks, and its
muzzle was turned a little upwards. A sailor assured him that this
animal, of which he only saw the fore part of its body, the rest being
in the water, had feet. This sea-cow of le Guat's, the sea-bear of
Spilsberg, and the sea-lion of Biervillas, seem to be the same animal
as the _dugon_, the head of which was sent us from the isle of France,
and which, consequently, is to be met with in the southern seas, from
the Cape of Good Hope to the Philippine islands: as for the rest we
cannot affirm that this animal, which resembles the walrus by its head
and tusks, has, like that, four feet. We only presume from analogy,
and the testimony of travellers, that they have those members; but
as the analogy is not very great, nor the testimonies of travellers
sufficiently precise to decide this point, we shall suspend our
judgment thereon till we are able to obtain better information.
THE MANATI.
This animal is called in French lamantin, and supposed by some to have
derived that name from the lamentable cries it makes, but which is
merely fabulous, as it is only a corruption of the real word _manati_,
which in the Spanish indicates an animal with hands.
This animal may either be called the last of beasts or the first of
fishes, for, in fact, it cannot positively be pronounced either the
one or the other. The manati (_fig. 194._) partakes of the nature of
the former, by its two fore-feet, or hands; but the hind legs, which
are almost wholly concealed in the bodies of the seal and walrus, are
entirely wanting in the manati; instead of two short feet and a small
narrow tail, which the walrus carries in an horizontal direction, the
manati has only a large tail, which spreads out like a fan, so that at
first sight it seems as if the tail of the first was divided into three
parts, and that in the latter they were all united into one; but from
a more attentive inspection, and particularly by dissection, we find
that there is no such union, that there are no vestiges of the bones
which form the thighs and legs, and that the tail of the manati is
composed of simple isolated vertebræ, like those of cetaceous animals,
who have no feet. Therefore this animal partakes of the cetaceous
nature in the hinder parts of its body, and of a quadruped by the
two fore-feet, or hands, on each side of the breast. Oviedo seems to
be the first author who has given any sort of history or description
of the manati; he says, "This is a very clumsy and mishapen animal,
having the head thicker than that of an ox, with small eyes, and two
feet, or hands, placed near the head, which serve him for the purpose
of swimming. He has no scales, but is covered with a skin or rather a
thick hide: he is a peaceable animal, and feeds upon the herbage by the
river sides, which he can reach without entirely quitting the water. To
take the manati they row themselves in a boat, or on a raft, as near
the animal as possible, and then dart a very strong arrow at him, to
the end of which a long cord is fastened: feeling himself wounded he
instantly swims away, or plunges to the bottom; but the cord has a
cork, or piece of wood, fastened to the end of it, which serves as a
buoy, and directs them which way he takes. When the animal begins to
grow weak through the loss of blood, he swims towards the shore; the
cord is then wound up, and the animal drawn within arm's length of the
boat, where they dispatch him with spears, &c. He is so heavy that he
requires two oxen to draw him. His flesh is excellent eating, is much
esteemed when fresh, but more so when cut in pieces and pickled; in
which state it acquires the flavour of the tunny fish. Some of these
animals measure more than fifteen feet in length by six in thickness;
the body becomes narrow towards the tail, and then spreads gradually
broader towards the end. He has no external ears, but only two holes
for the sense of hearing: his skin is tough and hard, an inch thick, of
an ash colour, and has a few scattered hairs, or bristles, on it. The
female has two paps on her breast, and generally brings forth two young
ones at a time, which she suckles."[J] All these facts mentioned by
Oviedo are true, and it is remarkable that Cieça, and many others after
him, should affirm, that the manati leaves the water very often to feed
upon land. They have been led into this error, from the analogy of the
walrus and seals, which have this natural habit; but it is certain,
that the manati never quits the water, and that he prefers fresh water
to salt.
[Footnote J: These paps are very prominent during the time of
gestation, and of suckling the young; but at other periods they are
discernible only by the nipple.]
Clusius saw and measured the skin of one of these animals, and found it
sixteen feet and a half long, and seven feet and a half broad; the two
feet were very broad, and the claws short. Gomara asserts, that he has
sometimes met with them twenty feet long; and adds, that these animals
frequent fresh-water rivers as well as the sea. He says, a young one
was reared in a lake in the island of St. Domingo for twenty-six years;
that he was so docile and tame, that he came quietly for the food which
was offered to him; that he was so intelligent as to come out of the
water when called, and crawl to the house to receive his victuals; that
he seemed delighted with the human voice; that he was fond of children,
would suffer them to sit upon his back, and carry them from one end of
the lake to the other, without plunging them into the water; and that
he had no kind of fear. These circumstances cannot all be true; some of
them seem adapted to the fable of the dolphin related by the ancients,
for the manati cannot possibly crawl on the ground.
Herrere says little with regard to this animal, and only asserts, that
although very large, the manati swims with such facility, that his
motion in the water is not heard; and that he immediately dives to the
bottom, on hearing any noise.
Hernandes, who has given two figures of the manati, one in profile,
and the other in front, adds very little to what other Spanish authors
had said of it; he only mentions that there is a deformed beast called
the _mana'i_, which inhabits the Atlantic and Pacific oceans; the
descriptions of which he has chiefly taken from Oviedo; and then adds,
that the hands of this animal have five nails like those of a man; that
its navel and anus are wide; that the vulva of the female is like that
of a woman, and the sexual organ of the male like that of a horse; that
the flesh and fat are like those of a hog; that the ribs and viscera
are like those of a bull; that they copulate on land, the female lying
on her back, and that she brings forth but one young at a time, which
is of a monstrous size at its birth. The copulation of these animals
cannot be effected on land, since they are unable to walk, but it is on
the contrary performed in shallow water. Binet says, that the manati is
as big as an ox, and as round as a tun; that his head is small, and his
tail short; that his skin is rough and thick like that of an elephant;
that there are some of these animals so large, that one of them will
yield more than six hundred weight of good eatable flesh; that his
grease is as sweet as butter; that they delight to be near the mouth
of rivers, where they browze upon the sea weeds, which grow on the
banks; that at some few leagues distant from Cayenne, they are found in
such numbers, that a few men expert in darting the harpoon, might get
sufficient to load a vessel in one day. Father Tertre, who describes
the fishery of the manati, agrees almost in every respect with the
authors we have quoted; observing, however, that this animal has only
four toes and four claws on each foot, or hand, and adding, that he
feeds on a short vegetable which grows on the sea, and which he eats
nearly in the same manner as the ox; that having pastured sufficiently,
he makes to the rivers and fresh waters, where he moistens his food;
and that his belly being full, he sleeps with his nose half way out
of the water, so that he can be seen at a distance; that the female
brings forth two young at a time, which follow her wherever she goes;
and that when the mother is taken, they are sure of having the young,
because they not only keep close to the body when she is dead, but
even go continually round the vessel which is carrying her away. This
last circumstance appears very suspicious, and is contradicted by
other travellers, who assert, that the manati never brings forth more
than one at a time; which is consistent with the nature of all other
large quadruped or other cetaceous animals, so that analogy alone is
sufficient to prevent our believing that the manati always brings
forth two. Oxmelin remarks, that the tail of the manati is placed
horizontally like that of the cetaceous animals, and not vertically
like those of the scaly brood; that he has no fore teeth, but only a
callosity as hard as a bone, with which he cuts the herbage; but that
he has thirty-two grinders; that his sight is imperfect, on account of
the smallness of his eyes, which have no iris and very little moisture;
that he has an extremely small brain; but to remedy the defect of
sight, he has a very quick ear; that he has no tongue; that the parts
of generation are more like those of the human species than any other:
that the milk of the female, which he asserts to have tasted, is very
good; that they produce but one young at a time, which they embrace
and hold with their hands; that the mother suckles it during a year,
after which it is able to provide for itself: that this animal has
fifty-two vertebræ; that it feeds like the turtle, but can neither walk
nor crawl upon land. All these facts are very exact, and even that of
the fifty-two vertebræ; for M. Daubenton in one he dissected found
twenty-eight vertebræ in the tail, sixteen in the back, and six, or
rather seven in the neck. This traveller is only deceived with respect
to the tongue, which is not deficient in the manati, but affixed to the
lower jaw almost to the extremity.
In the Voyage to the American islands, printed at Paris, 1722, we
meet with a tolerable good description of the manati, and the manner
in which it is taken by the harpoon. The author perfectly agrees with
all the principal facts we have already mentioned; but he observes,
"that this animal is become very rare in the Antilles since the coasts
have been inhabited; and that the one which he saw and measured, was
fourteen feet nine inches, from the muzzle to the tail: his head was
very thick, with a large mouth and lips, which were furnished with
coarse hairs; his eyes small in proportion to his head; and he had only
two holes in the sides instead of ears; his neck was very thick and
short, and but for the wrinkles occasioned by his motions, it would
be impossible to tell his head from his body. Some authors pretend
(he adds) that this animal makes use of his hands, or fins, to crawl
upon land: I particularly endeavoured to inform myself respecting
this fact, but could not hear of any person who had seen him out of
water; and indeed, it is impossible for him to walk or crawl, since
its fore-feet, or hands, only serve the female to hold the young while
they suckle. The female has two round breasts, which I measured; they
were each seven inches in diameter, and about four in their elevation:
the nipple was about an inch thick; the body was eight feet two inches
in circumference; the tail was like a large battledore, about nineteen
inches long, fifteen inches broad at the widest part, and about three
inches thick at its extremity. The skin on the back was about double
the thickness of an ox's hide, but much thinner on the belly; it was
of a slate colour and of very coarse grain; the hairs, or bristles,
were of the same colour as the skin, thinly scattered, but very thick,
and long. This animal weighed about eight hundred pounds; and with it
the young one was taken, which was nearly three feet long. A part of
its tail was roasted, the flesh of which was as good and as delicate
as veal. The herb upon which these animals feed is about eight or ten
inches long, narrow pointed, tender, and of a fine green colour. This
herb is so plenty in many places on the coasts, that the bottom of the
sea has the appearance of a verdant meadow, and upon which the turtles
also feed, &c." Father Magnin de Fribourg says, that the manati feeds
on such grass on the shores, as it is able to reach without quitting
the water; that its eyes are not bigger than a filberd nut; that its
ears are so narrow, that a needle can scarcely be passed into them;
that within the ears are found two small bones, which the Indians wear
about their necks; and that its cry resembles the lowing of a cow.
Gumilla states, that there are immense numbers of manati in the Great
lakes of Oronooko, "These animals (says he) weigh from five to seven
hundred pounds each; they feed upon grass; their eyes are small, and
the holes for their ears still smaller. They pasture on the sea shores
when the river is low. The female always brings forth two young ones,
which she carries at her paps, and grasps them so strongly with her two
hands that they cannot fall off, the milk of the female is very thick.
Under its thick skin, four beds, or layers, are met with, two of which
are of fat, and the other two of a very delicate and savoury flesh,
which, when roasted, has the smell of pork and the taste of veal. These
animals, when a storm of rain approaches, leap out of the water to a
considerable height." Gumilla seems to be mistaken, as well as Tertre,
in asserting that the female brings forth two young at a time, since it
is almost a certainty, as has been already observed, that she produces
no more than one.
Upon the whole, M. de Condamine, who favoured us with a drawing, which
he himself made of the manati in the Amazon river, speaks with greater
precision than any other author on the natural habits of this animal.
"Its flesh and fat (says he) have a great resemblance to veal. Father
Acuna makes its resemblance to the ox still more complete, by giving
it horns, which Nature never provided. It is not, properly speaking,
amphibious, since it cannot entirely leave the water, having only two
flat fins close to the head, about sixteen inches long, and which
serve the animal instead of arms and hands. It only raises its head out
of the water to feed on the herbage upon the shore. That of which I
drew the figure was a female; it was about seven feet and a half long,
and its greatest breadth two feet: I have since seen some much larger.
The eyes of this animal have no proportion to the size of its body; the
orifice of its ears is still less, and only seems like a hole made by
a pin. The manati is not peculiar to the Amazon river, being not less
common in the Oronooko. It is also found, though less frequently, in
the Oyapoc, and many other rivers in the environs of Cayenne, and on
the coast of Guiana, and probably in other parts."
This is nearly all the precise matter which we can collect respecting
this animal. It were to be wished that the inhabitants of Cayenne,
among whom there are several admirers of Natural History, would
make some observations on this animal, and give us a description of
its internal parts, especially those of respiration, digestion and
generation. There seems, though we are not certain, to be a great bone
in the genital member, and a foramen ovale in the heart; that its lungs
are of a singular conformation; and that it has several stomachs, like
ruminating animals.
To conclude: the species of the manati is not confined to the seas and
rivers of the New World, but exists also in those of Africa. M. Adanson
saw them at Senegal, whence he brought one of their heads, which he
presented to me, and at the same time communicated the following
description of this animal, which he made on the spot, and which I have
thought it proper wholly to transcribe. "I saw many of these animals,
the largest was not more than eight feet long, and weighed about eight
hundred pounds. A female, which was five feet three inches long,
weighed only one hundred and ninety-four pounds. They are of a dark ash
colour, and have hairs scattered over their bodies, very long, and like
bristles. The head is conical, and of a middling size, with respect to
the bulk of the body. The eyes are round and very small; the iris is
of a deep blue, and the pupil black. The muzzle is almost cylindrical;
its cheeks are nearly of an equal breadth, and the lips are fleshy and
very thick. The only teeth they have either in the upper or lower jaw
are grinders. The tongue is of an oval form, and joined almost to the
end of the lower jaw. It is remarkable that almost every author and
traveller have described this animal with ears. I have not been able
to perceive a hole sufficient even to admit a small probe. It has two
arms, or fins, placed close to the head, which is not distinguishable
from the rest of the body by any kind of neck, nor even any apparent
shoulders. These arms are nearly cylindrical, composed of three
articulations, the foremost of which is flat, and like the palm of the
hand, the fingers of which are only to be distinguished by four claws
of a bright brownish red colour; its tail is horizontal, like that of
the whale, and is partly of the form of a baker's shovel. The female
has two breasts, rather elliptic than round, placed near the arm-pits.
The skin is thin on the belly, thick on the back, but thickest of all
on the head. The fat is white, and two or three inches thick; the flesh
is of a pale red colour, and more delicate than veal. The lolof negroes
call this animal _lereou_; it feeds on herbage, and is to be found at
the mouth of the Black Sea."
By this description we find that the manati of Senegal does not differ
in any particular from that of Cayenne; and from a comparison made of
the head of the Senegal manati with that of a foetus of the Cayenne
lamantin by M. Daubenton, he presumes that they are of the same
species. The testimony of travellers also agrees with our opinion;
Dampier in particular speaks positively, and his observations deserve
a place in our history. "It is not only in Blewfield river, which
springs between the rivers Nicaraga and Veraga, that I have seen the
manati: I have also seen them in the Bay of Campeachy, on the coast of
Bocca del Drago, and Bocca del Toro, in the river of Darien, and in
the small southern islands of Cuba: I have heard it said that there
are a few found on the north of Jamaica, and many in Surinam river,
which is a very low country. I have likewise seen them at Mindanea,
one of the Philippine islands, and on the coast of New Holland. This
animal is fond of brackish water, therefore he most commonly inhabits
those rivers which border on the sea. This is possibly the reason why
we never meet with any in the South Seas, where the coast is generally
high, and the water very deep near land, except in the Bay of Panama;
but even there the manati is not to be met with; but the West-Indies
being, as it were, a great bay composed of a number of small ones, are
generally low land and shallow water, and consequently afford a food
which is agreeable to the manati. They are sometimes seen in salt
water, sometimes in fresh, but seldom very far from shore. Those which
inhabit the sea, and places where there are no rivers that they can
enter, come to the mouth of the nearest fresh-water rivers which they
find, once or twice in twenty-four hours. They feed on a narrow herbage
which grows on the sides of the shores, especially in places where the
tides or currents are not very strong. They never go on shore, but
always keep in a depth of water where they can swim. Their flesh is
sweet, and very good food; their skin is also of great utility. The
manati and the tortoise are commonly found in the same parts of the
world, and feed on the same herbage."[K]
[Footnote K: A great number of manatis are to be found along the low
and marshy coasts, and in the vast lakes of Moyacaré, the most southern
part of French Guiana, above the Oyapoc. Small vessels from Cayenne go
to the fishery of these animals, and bring their flesh salted, a gross
aliment which is kept for the negroes. This fishery, which might become
an object of important commerce, should be encouraged; it would require
a small establishment upon the coast, and would facilitate the means of
acquiring some knowledge of a country now unknown, and which, at the
same time that it opened new sources of commerce, would prove also an
inexhaustible mine of wealth to Natural History.]
THE NOMENCLATURE OF APES.
In the history of these animals we shall not follow the pedantic method
of schools, which lays down arbitrary maxims as real, and falsities
as truth; such documents are eagerly imbibed by children, but are
judiciously rejected by men, if not founded on solid principles. We
shall, therefore, to avoid such imaginary methodical distributions,
which have been of no other use than to heap a multiplicity, and even
distinct species, of animals into one indiscriminate mass.
What I call an _Ape_ is an animal with a flat visage, and without
a tail, whose teeth, fingers, nails, and hands, resemble those of
the human species, and who also walks upright on its two feet. This
definition, drawn from the nature of the animal, and its resemblance
to man, will exclude every animal that has a tail, or a long snout,
crooked or pointed claws, or whose nature obliges them to walk more
willingly on four feet than on two. After this fixed and precise
rule, let us examine to what animals the name of Ape can properly be
applied. The ancients knew only one; the _pithecos_ of the Greeks, and
the _simia_ of the Latins, is the real ape, and on which Aristotle,
Pliny, and Galen, have instituted all their physical comparisons, and
founded all their relations of the ape to mankind. But this ape of the
ancients, which so greatly resembles man in its external form, and
still more in its internal organization, nevertheless differs from him
in an essential point, namely, magnitude. The size of the human species
is generally above five feet, while that of the _pithecos_ is seldom
more than a fourth of that height. Therefore, if this animal had a
still greater resemblance to the human species, the ancients would have
had reason to regard it only as an _homunculus_, a dwarf, or a pigmy,
capable only of attacking small animals, while man knew how to subdue
the elephant, and even to conquer the lion.
But since the discovery of the southern parts of Africa and India,
another animal of this kind has been found, which possesses this
attribute of size; an ape as tall and as strong as man, and equally as
ardent after a woman as its own females; a species which are sagacious
enough to make use of stones to attack their enemies, and sticks to
defend themselves, and which resembles the human species still more
than the pithecos, for, independently of its having no tail, a flat
face, arms, hands, teeth, and nails, like those of a man, and, like
him walking erect, it has a kind of visage, with features, approaching
to those of mankind: its ears are of the same form; it has a beard on
its chin, and not more hair on its body than man in his natural state.
From these resemblances the more polished Indians have not hesitated
to associate it among the human species, by the name of _orang-outang_,
or wild man of the woods; while the Negroes, who are really as savage,
and almost as ugly, as those animals, and who are not of opinion
that civilization exalts our nature, have denominated it _pongo_,
which signifies a beast, and has no relation to man. In fact this
orang-outang is not only a brute but a very singular one, which man
cannot look upon, without contemplating himself, and being convinced
that his external form is not the most essential part of his nature.
Here then are two animals, the pithecos and the orang-outang, which
must be ranked among the ape kind. There is also a third, to which,
though more deformed, we cannot refuse that appellation; until very
lately this animal was scarcely known, it was brought from the East
Indies by the name of _gibbon_; like the other two it walks erect, is
without a tail, and has a flat face; but its arms, instead of being
proportioned to its height, are of such extraordinary length, that when
it stands erect on its two feet, it touches the ground with its hands,
without the smallest inclination of its body.
Next to these apes, we meet with another race of animals, which we
shall indicate by the generic name of the _baboon_; and to distinguish
them clearly from every other animal of the kind, it is necessary
to observe that the baboon has a short tail, a long face, a broad
muzzle, with canine teeth, larger in proportion than that of man, and
callosities on its rump. By this definition, we exclude from this race
all the apes which have no tails, all the monkies whose tails are as
long, or longer than their bodies, and all the makis, loris, and other
four-handed animals, that have their muzzles sharp and pointed. The
ancients never had a proper name for these animals; Aristotle alone has
pointed out one of those baboons by the name of _simia porcaria_, but
gives a very imperfect indication of it in other respects. The Italians
first called it _babuino_, the Germans _bavion_, the French _babouin_,
the English _baboon_, and every modern author, who has written of it in
Latin, _papio_. We shall therefore term it baboon, to distinguish it
from the other species since discovered in the southern provinces of
Africa and India. We are acquainted with three kinds of these animals.
1. The _baboon_, which is found in Arabia, &c. and which, probably, is
the _simia porcaria_ of Aristotle. 2. The _mandrill_, which is larger
than the baboon, whose face is of a bluish colour, and furrowed with
deep and oblique wrinkles; this is a native of Guinea, and the hottest
parts of Africa. 3. The _ouanderou_, which is less than the baboon and
mandrill; its head and face is surrounded with a very thick and long
hair, and has a large white beard; it is seen in Ceylon, Malabar, and
other southern parts of India. Thus we have precisely defined three
species of the ape, and three of the baboon, and all of them very
distinctly differing from each other.
But as Nature acts on one regular plan, connected and extended
throughout all her works, and as her progress is always by minute
degrees, there must be an intermediate species between the ape and the
baboon. This intermediate species actually exists, and is, in fact, to
be found in the _magot_, which fills up the chasm between the other
two. It differs from the first in having a long muzzle and large canine
teeth; and varies from the second, in not having any tail, although
there is a small protuberance of skin at that part, which has something
of that appearance. This animal, consequently, is neither an ape, nor
a baboon, yet, at the same time, partakes of the nature of both. The
magot, which is a very common animal in Upper Egypt, as well as in
Barbary, was known to the ancients. The Greeks and Latins denominated
it _cynocephalus_, because its muzzle resembles that of a dog. These
animals, then, must be ranged in the following order: _orang-outang_,
or _pongo_, is the first ape; the _pithecos_, the second; the _gibbon_,
the third; the _cynocephalus_, or _magot_, the fourth ape, or the first
baboon. The _papio_, the first baboon; the _mandrill_, the second;
and the _ouanderou_, the third. This order is neither arbitrary nor
fictitious, but strictly conformable to the steps of Nature.
After the species of apes and baboons, immediately follow the
_guenons_, or _monkies_; that is, animals which resemble the two
former, but which have tails as long, or longer than their bodies. The
word guenon was anciently employed, sometimes to denote a small ape,
and at others, the female; it has also been used in the sense we now
take it, to denote the apes with long tails, and was probably derived
from the word _kébos_, which the Greeks made use of for that very
purpose. Of these _guenons_, or _monkies_, we know of nine species,
which we shall distinguish by different names, to avoid confusion,
and for the sake of regularity. The first of these is the _macaque_;
the second, the _patas_, or _red monkey_; the third, the _malbrouck_;
the fourth, the _mangabey_; the fifth the _mone_; the sixth, the
_callitrix_, or _green monkey_; the seventh, the _moustac_; the eighth,
the _talapoin_; and the ninth, the _douc_, so called in Cochin-China,
of which country it is a native. The ancients knew only two of this
class, the mone and the callitrix, which inhabit Arabia and the
northern parts of Africa; they had not the least idea of any other, for
they are only to be found in the southern provinces of Africa and the
East Indies, countries absolutely unknown in the time of Aristotle.
This great philosopher, and the Greeks in general, were so careful to
affix proper names to different animals, that they denominated the ape
without a tail, _pithecos_, and the monkey with a long tail, _kébos_,
both of which they carefully drew from the most apparent character
of these animals. All the apes and baboons which they knew, had a
uniform colour; on the contrary, the monkey which we call _mone_, and
the Greeks, _kébos_, has hair of different colours, and is vulgarly
called the _variegated monkey_; this species was the most common of
all those animals in the time of Aristotle; and from this character
it obtained the name of _kébos_, which in Greek signifies a variety
of colours. Thus all the animals of the ape, baboon, and monkey kind,
mentioned by Aristotle, may be reduced to four, the _pithecos_,
the _cynocephalus_, the _simia porcaria_, and the _kébos_; which we
think ourselves sufficiently justified to rank as the _pithecos_ or
_pigmy_, the _magot_, the _baboon_, and the _mone_, not only because
their particular characters perfectly agree with those mentioned
by Aristotle, but also, because the other species must have been
absolutely unknown to him, since they are natives of those countries
into which the Greek travellers of his time had not penetrated.
Two or three ages after Aristotle, we meet with two new names in the
Greek authors, _callithrix_ and _cercopithecos_, both relative to
the long-tailed monkey. In proportion as discoveries were made, in
the southern regions of Africa and Asia, we meet with new animals,
and other species of monkies; and as most of these monkies likewise
were not of various colours like the kébos, the Greeks composed the
generic name of _cercopithecos_, that is, the _ape with a tail_, to
denote all the species of monkies, or apes with long tails; and having
discovered among them one of a beautiful green colour, they called it
_callithrix_, which signifies beautiful hair. This callithrix is found
in the southern parts of Mauritania, and in the neighbouring countries
of Cape Verd, and commonly known by the name of the _green ape_.
With respect to the other seven species of monkies, which we have
indicated by the names of Macaque, Patas, Malbrouck, Mangabey, Moustac,
Talapoin, and Douc, they were unknown to the ancients. The macaque is
a native of Congo, the patas of Senegal, the mangabey of Madagascar,
the malbrouk of Bengal, the moustac of Guinea, the talapoin of Siam,
and the douc of Cochin-China; all these places were equally unknown to
the ancients, and we have been careful to preserve the original names
affixed to them in their native countries.
But as Nature always proceeds in a regular and gradual manner, never
leaving any chasms, we meet with an intermediate species between the
baboon and monkey, like that of the magot between the ape and the
baboon. The animal which fills up this interval, greatly resembles the
monkey, especially the macaque, but it has a broad muzzle, and short
tail, like the baboon. Being ignorant of its proper name, we have
called it the _maimon_, to distinguish it from other animals of this
kind. It is a native of Sumatra, and is the only animal, as well among
the baboon as the monkey species, that has no hair on its tail; and
upon that account it has been described by the denomination of the
_pig-tailed_ or _rat-tailed ape_.
Thus we have enumerated all the animals of the old continent, to which
the common name of ape has been given, though they are not only of
very distant species, but even of very different genera. But what has
completed the error and confusion in the arrangement of these animals
is, that the names of _ape_, _cynocephalus_, _kébos_, _cercopithecos_,
which were invented by the Greeks fifteen hundred years ago, have been
given to animals of the new continent, which have been discovered
within these two or three centuries. They knew not that the animals of
Africa and of the East Indies, were not to be found in the southern
parts of the new continent. Animals have been found in America with
hands and fingers, and this character alone was thought sufficient
to give them the appellation of apes, without considering that for
transferring a name it was requisite that the animals should be of the
same genus, and to apply it justly, of the same identical species.
Now the animals of America, of which we shall form two classes, by
the names of _sapajous_ and _sagoins_, are very different from all
the monkeys of Asia and Africa; and in the same manner as there are
neither apes, monkeys, nor baboons, to be found in the new continent,
so likewise there are neither the sapajous nor sagoins to be found in
the old. Though we have already mentioned these facts in general, in
our dissertation concerning the animals of the two continents, we can
here prove it in a more particular manner, and demonstrate, that of
seventeen species, to which number we may reduce all the ape species in
the old continent, and of twelve or thirteen, to which this name of ape
has been transferred in the new, there is not any of them alike, or to
be found in both continents, for of the seventeen in the old we must
first retrench three or four of the apes, who do not exist in America,
and to whom the sapajous and the sagoins have no resemblance. Secondly,
we must also retrench three or four of the baboons, which are much
larger than the sagoins or the sapajous, and also of a very different
form; there remains, therefore, only nine monkeys of the old continent
with whom any comparison can be made. Now this species of monkeys, as
well as the apes and baboons, have particular and general characters,
which entirely separate them from the sapajous and sagoins. The first
of these characters consists in the rump being bare, on which are
natural callosities peculiar to those parts. The second is the having
pouches on each side of the jaw, in which the animal can store its
food. The third is in the make of the nostrils, which are narrow,
and the apertures placed in the under parts, like those of man. The
sapajous and sagoins have not one of these characters. The partition
between their nostrils is very thick, and the apertures are placed
on the sides of the nose, and not below it. They have hair on their
posteriors, and no callosities; they have no pouches on each side of
their jaws; and hence these animals differ not only in species but even
in genus, since they have not any of the general characters common to
the whole tribe of monkeys; and this difference in genus supposes still
greater in the species, and demonstrates them to be quite distinct from
each other.
The names of ape and monkey, therefore, have been very improperly
applied to the sapajous and the sagoins. We must preserve their
original names, and instead of ranking them with the apes, we should
begin by comparing them together. These two families differ from each
other by a very remarkable character. All the sapajous make use of
their tails like a finger to hang by, and to procure what they cannot
reach with their hands. The sagoins, on the contrary, cannot make
use of their tail in that manner. Their face, ears, and hair, are
also different; we may, therefore, very properly divide them into two
distinct races.
Avoiding the use of denominations, which can only be applied to the
monkey, baboon, or ape, we have endeavoured to indicate the sapajous
and the sagoins by the names they bear in their native country. We
are acquainted with six or seven species of sapajous, and six of the
sagoins, most of which have varieties. We have carefully searched
after their names in all authors, and particularly in the writings
of observant travellers who have first mentioned them, because, in
general, the names which any one of them have in their native country
is derived from some particular character, which alone was sufficient
to distinguish it from all the rest. With respect to the varieties,
which in this class of animals are, perhaps, more numerous than the
species, we have endeavoured to refer each to its respective species.
We have had in our possession forty of these animals alive, differing
from each other in a greater or less degree, and from a particular and
attentive examination of which, we think the whole may be reduced to
thirty species, viz. three apes, and one intermediate species between
them and the baboons; three baboons, and one intermediate species
between them and the monkeys; nine monkeys, seven sapajous, and six
sagoins; the rest, or at least the greatest part of them, ought to be
considered only as varieties. But as we are not absolutely certain that
some of these varieties may not be distinct species, we shall endeavour
to give all of them proper denominations.
Here, then, let us consider terrestrial animals, some of which
so greatly resemble the human form, in a new point of view. The
affixing the name of _quadruped_ to all these animals has been done
unjustly. If the exceptions were few we should not have objected to
the application of this term. We are convinced that our definitions
and names, however general, do not comprehend the whole; that there
exists particular beings, which escape the most cautious definitions,
and that intermediate species are constantly discovered. We know
that many, though to all appearance holding the middle station, have
escaped enumeration, and that the general names under which they are
included is incomplete; because Nature should never be considered
in the aggregate, but by unities only, because man has invented
general names only to assist his memory, and because he afterwards
weakly regarded those general names as realities; in short, because
he has endeavoured to comprehend, under the same denominations, very
different animals, and which necessarily required other appellations.
I can give both example and proof, without swerving from the class of
quadrupeds, which, of all animals, are those best known to man, and to
which he was, consequently, the best enabled to give the most precise
denominations.
The name of _quadruped_ supposes an animal with _four feet_. If it be
deficient in two, like the manati; if it have hands and arms like the
ape; or if it have wings like the bat; it is not a quadruped: therefore
this general denomination is erroneous when applied to either of those
animals. In order to speak with precision, there should be truth in
the ideas which the words represent; for instance, let us find a
word to convey a perfect idea of an animal with two hands; if we had
a term to denote a two-handed animal, as well as one with two feet,
we might then say, that man alone is biped and bimanous, because he
alone has two hands and two feet; that the manati is only _bimanous_;
that the bat is only a _biped_; and the ape a _quadrimanous_, or
four-handed animal. Let us now apply these _new_ denominations to
every particular being with which they agree, and we shall discover,
that from the two hundred species of animals to which we have given
the common name of _quadrupeds_, there are thirty-five sorts of apes,
baboons, monkeys, sapajous, sagoins, and makis, must be retrenched, as
they are _quadrimanous_, or four-handed; and that to those thirty-five
species we must add the lori, the murine, Virginian and Mexican
opossums, and the jerboas, which are also _quadrimanous_, like those
above-mentioned, and that, consequently, the list of four-handed
animals being at least composed of forty species, the real number of
quadrupeds will be reduced one fifth part. If afterwards we take out
twelve or fifteen species of bipeds, namely, the bats, whose fore-feet
may rather be called wings than feet, and also three or four jerboas,
because they can only walk on their hind feet, those before being too
short; if we remove also the manati, which has no hind feet, and the
different species of the walrus, and the seal, to which animals they
are entirely useless, the number of quadrupeds will be found diminished
a third more; and if we still subtract those animals which make use of
their fore-feet like hands, as the bears, marmots, coatis, squirrels,
rats, and many others, the denomination of quadrupeds will appear to
be misapplied to more than one half of these animals. In fact real
quadrupeds consist only of whole and cloven-footed animals. When we
descend to the digitated class, we find four-handed, or ambiguous
quadrupeds, who use their fore-feet in the manner of hands, and which
ought to be distinguished or separated from the rest. There are three
species of whole hoofed animals, the horse, the zebra, and the ass;
and, by adding the elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, and the
camel, whose feet, though terminated by nails, are solid, and only
serve for the purpose of walking, we shall have seven species to which
the name of quadruped perfectly applies.
There is a much greater number of cloven-footed than whole-hoofed
animals. The oxen, the sheep, the goat, the antelope, the bubalus, the
lama, the pacos, the elk, the rein-deer, the stag, the fallow-deer,
the roe-buck, &c. are all cloven-footed, and compose all together full
forty-species. Thus, we have already fifty animals, ten whole hoofed,
and forty cloven-footed, to which the name of quadruped has been
rightly applied. In the digitated animals, the lion, tiger, panther,
leopard, lynx, cat, wolf, fox, dog, hyæna, civet, badger, weasel,
ferret, porcupine, hedge hog, armadillo, ant-eaters, and hog, which
last constitutes the shade between digitated and cloven-footed tribes,
add more than forty other species, to which the name of quadruped also
applies in all the rigour of its acceptation; because, though their
fore-feet are divided into four or five toes, they never use them as
hands; but all the other digitated species who use their fore-feet to
hold and carry food to their mouths, are not, in strict propriety,
quadrupeds. Those species, which are also forty in number, form an
intermediate class between quadrupeds and four-handed animals, and are
in fact neither one nor the other. Therefore, to more than a fourth of
our animals, the name of quadruped does not apply; and with more than
one half it does not agree in all the extent of its acceptation.
The four-handed animals fill up the great chasm between the quadruped
and the human species. The two handed are in the distance between
man and the cetaceous tribes. The bipeds with wings are the shade
between quadrupeds and birds; and the digitated species who use their
fore-feet as hands, fill up all the degrees between the quadrupeds and
the four-handed kinds. But this subject is too extensive to be here
pursued; however useful it might be to give a distinct knowledge of
animals, it is still more so by furnishing us with a new proof, that
not any of our definitions are precise, nor our general terms exact,
when specifically applied to objects, or to beings which they represent.
But why are these definitions and general terms, which seem to be the
master-piece of invention, so exceedingly defective? Is this error the
defect of human understanding? or rather, is it not an incapacity, or
pure inability, of combining, and perceiving a number of objects at
one view? Let us compare the works of nature with those of man: let
us examine how both operate, and then enquire whether the human mind,
however active and extensive, can follow the same route, without being
lost either in the immensity of space, the obscurity of time, or in
the infinite combinations of beings? Let a man direct his mind to
any object if he would avoid being misled, he must walk in a direct
line, pass over the least space, and employ the least possible time to
accomplish his end. But in this pursuit, what a number of reflections
and combinations must he make to avoid those deceitful and fallacious
roads which at first offer themselves in such numbers, that it
requires the greatest and nicest discernment to choose the true and
direct path? This path, however, is not beyond the depth of the human
mind; and by this only sure and solid method he arrives at the destined
point of view; but if he seeks another point, it can only be obtained
by another line. The train of our ideas is a delicate thread, which
only extends in length without any other dimensions; while Nature, on
the contrary, does not take a single step, without extending on all
sides, and passing at once through the three dimensions of length,
breadth and thickness; while man attains but one single point, she
embraces all, and penetrates into every part of a solid mass. By the
power of art, and length of time, our statuaries form a figure which
externally resembles the object proposed; each point of this surface
requires a thousand combinations. Their genius travels over as many
lines as there are lineaments in the figure, and the least false step
would deform it. This piece of marble, so perfectly executed that it
seems to breathe, is, therefore, only a multitude of points to which
the artist arrives by labour and time; for human genius being unable
to seize more than one dimension at a time, and our senses reaching
no further than surfaces, we cannot penetrate the substance; while,
Nature, on the contrary, designs and enters into the depth of things;
she produces forms almost instantaneously; she at once expands them
in all their dimensions; as soon as her movements reach the surface,
the penetrating powers with which she is animated, operate internally.
The smallest atom, when she chooses to make use of it, is obliged to
obey her will. Her actions, therefore, extend over all; she travels
above, below, to the right and left, and consequently, she not
only encompasses the surface, but every particle of the mass. What
difference there consequently is in the result? What comparison can be
made between a statue and an organised body? But also what inequality
in their powers, and how disproportioned the instruments! Man can
only make use of the power he possesses. Confined to a small quantity
of motion, which he can only communicate by impulsion, he can only
exert himself upon surfaces; since the power of impulsion in general
is only transmitted by superficial contact. He only sees and touches,
therefore, the surfaces of bodies, and when he attempts to proceed
further, though he opens, divides, and separates, he still touches
nothing more than surfaces. To penetrate the interior parts of bodies,
he should be possessed of a portion of that power which acts upon
the mass, or of gravity, which is Nature's chief instrument. It is,
therefore, the defect of instruments which prevents the art of man from
approaching that of Nature. His figures, his pictures, his designs,
are only surfaces, or imitations of surfaces, because the images he
receives by his senses are all superficial, and he is unable to give
them the internal parts.
What is true with regard to the arts is the same as to sciences, only
that the latter is less confined, because the mind is the instrument,
and which in the former is subordinate to the senses. But in the
sciences the mind commands the senses, as its only endeavour is to
search into objects, and not to operate on them; to compare, and not
imitate them. The mind, though thus cramped by the senses, though
often abused by their false reports, is, notwithstanding, neither less
pure nor less active. Man, who has a natural desire to knowledge,
began by rectifying, and demonstrating the errors of the senses. He
has treated them as mechanical organs, as instruments, the effects
of which must be left to experience. Pursuing still his desire of
knowledge, he has travelled on with the balance in one hand, and the
compass in the other, and has measured both time and space. Thus, he
has recognized all the exterior parts of Nature's works, but not being
able to penetrate her internal parts by his senses, he has drawn his
conclusions and formed a judgment of them by analogy and comparison. He
discovered that there exists a general force in matter, quite different
from that of impulsion; a force which does not come within the compass
of our senses, and which, though we are unable to make use of, Nature
employs as an universal agent. He has demonstrated, that this force
belongs equally to all matter, in proportion to its mass or real
quantity; that its action extends to immense distances, decreasing as
the space augments. Afterwards, turning his eyes upon living beings,
he found, that heat was another force necessary to their production;
that light was a matter endowed with an unbounded elasticity and
activity; that the formation and expansion of organized beings were
the effects of a combination of all these forces; that the extension
and growth of animal or vegetable bodies, follow exactly the laws of
attraction, and are effected by an increase of all three dimensions at
the same time; and that a mould, when once formed, must, according
to these laws of affinity, produce a succession of others exactly
resembling the original. By combining these attributes, common to
animal and vegetable Nature, he discovered, that there existed in both
an inexhaustible and reversible fund of organic and living substance; a
substance as real as the unformed matter; a substance which continues
always in its live as the other does in its inactive state; a substance
universally diffused, passing from vegetables to animals by means
of nutrition, returning from animals to vegetables by the process
of putrefaction, and maintaining an incessant circulation for the
animation of beings. He also remarked, that these organic particles
existed in every organized body; that they were combined in greater
or less quantities with dead matter; that they were more abundant in
animals where all is full of life, and more scarce in vegetables where
the dead matter predominates, and the living seems to be extinct; where
the organic matter, overpowered by the rude, has neither progressive
motion, sensation, heat, nor life, and is only manifested by its
unfolding and reproduction. Reflecting on the manner each operates,
he discovered, that every living being is a mould that possesses the
power of assimilating the substances by which it is nourished; that
growth is an effect of this assimilation, that the unfolding of a
living body is not a simple augmentation of bulk, but an extension in
every dimension, and a penetration of new matter into every part of the
whole mass; that those parts increasing in proportion to the whole,
and the whole in proportion to the parts, the form is preserved, and
remains always the same till the growth is completed; that when the
body has acquired all its extent, the same matter heretofore employed
in the augmentation, is sent back as superfluous from every part to
which it had been assimilated; and that, by uniting in one common
point, it forms a new being, perfectly like the first, and which to
attain the same dimensions, requires only to be expanded by the same
mode of nutrition. He also observed that man, quadrupeds, cetaceous
animals, birds, reptiles, insects, trees, plants, and herbs, were all
nourished, unfolded, and reproduced by the same universal law; and that
the manner of their nutrition and generation appearing so different,
although dependent on one general and common cause, was because it
could not operate but in a mode relative to the form of each particular
species of being. To acquire these grand truths, required a succession
of ages, and gradual investigation, but having obtained so much, he
began to compare different objects together; and to distinguish one
from the other, he gave them particular names, and invented general
denominations to reunite them under one point of view. He observed, by
taking the body of man as the physical model of every living animal,
and by comparing and examining every living animal in their several
parts, that the form of every thing that breathes is nearly the same;
that the anatomy of a man and an ape are similar; that every animal
has the same organization, the same senses, the same viscera, the same
bones, the same flesh, the same motion of the fluids, and the same
action in the solids. In all of them he has found a heart, veins, and
arteries; the same organs of circulation, respiration, digestion,
nutrition, and secretion; the same solid structure, erected with the
same materials, and put together nearly in the same manner. This
plan he found to proceed uniformly from mankind to the monkey, from
the monkey to quadrupeds, from quadrupeds to the cetaceous animals,
and so on to birds, fish, and reptiles. This plan, I say, when well
comprehended by the human understanding, exhibits a faithful picture of
animated nature, and affords the most simple and general view under
which she can possibly be considered; and when we extend it by passing
from the animal to the vegetable, we shall find this plan, which we
at first found varying only by shades, degenerate by degrees from
reptiles to insects, from insects to worms, from worms to zoophytes,
and from zoophytes to plants; and though changed in all its exterior
parts, nevertheless, still preserving the same character; the principal
features of which are nutrition, expansion, and reproduction. These
features are general and common to every organized substance, they are
eternal and divine; and, far from being effaced or destroyed by time,
are only renewed and rendered more plain and evident.
If, from this great picture of resemblances, in which the living
universe presents itself as but one family, we pass to that of the
differences, wherein each species claims a separate place, and a
distinct portrait, we shall perceive, that excepting some of the larger
species, such as the elephant, the rhinoceros, the hippopotamus, the
tiger, and the lion, every other seems to unite with its neighbouring
kind, and to form groups of degraded similitudes, or genera, which our
nomenclators have represented in a network of figures, some of which
are connected by the feet, and others by the teeth, horns, hair, and
others by still smaller affinities. And even the apes, whose form
appears to be the most perfect, that is, approaches nearest to that of
man, are represented confusedly, and require very accurate observations
to distinguish one from the other, because the privilege of separate
species is less owing to form than size. Man himself, although a single
species, and infinitely removed from that of all other animals, yet
being only of a middle size, has more approximations than the larger
kinds. We shall find in the history of the orang-outang that if we were
only to attend to the figure, we might look on that, animal either as
the termination of the human species, or the commencement of the ape;
because, except the intellect, he is not deficient in any one thing
which we possess, and because, in his body, he differs less from man
than from the other animals to which we have given the denomination of
apes.
The mind, thought, and speech, therefore do not depend on the form
or organization of the body. Nothing more strongly proves that they
are peculiar gifts bestowed on man alone, than that the orang-outang
which neither speaks nor thinks, has, nevertheless, the body, the
limbs, the senses, the skull, and the tongue exactly similar to man.
He can counterfeit every motion of the human species, and yet cannot
perfectly perform one single act; which may possibly be owing to a
defect of education, or perhaps yet more to an error in our judgment.
You unjustly compare, it may be said, an ape, who is a native of
the forests, with the man who resides in polished society. To form
a proper judgment between them, a savage man and an ape should be
viewed together; for we have no just idea of man in a pure state of
nature. The head covered with bristly hairs, or with curled wool; the
face partly hid by a long beard, and still longer hairs in the front,
which surround his eyes, destroy his august character, and make them
appear sunk in his head, like those of the brutes; the lips thick and
projecting, the nose flat, the aspect wild or stupid; the ears, body,
and limbs are covered with hair; the nails long, thick, and crooked; a
callous substance like a horn under the soles of the feet; the breasts
of the female long and flabby, and the skin of her belly hanging down
to her knees; the children wallowing in filth, and crawling on their
hands and feet; and the father and mother sitting on their hams,
forming a hideous appearance, rendered more so by being besmeared all
over with stinking grease. This sketch, drawn from a savage Hottentot,
is still a flattering portrait, for there is as great a distance
between a man in a pure state of nature and a Hottentot, as there is
between a Hottentot and us. But if we wish to compare the human species
with that of the ape, we must add to it the affinities of organization,
the agreements of temperament, the vehement desire of male apes for
women, the like conformation of the genitals in both sexes, the
periodic emanations of the females, the compulsive or voluntary
intermixture of the negresses with the apes, the produce of which has
united into both species; and then consider, supposing them not of the
same species, how difficult it is to discover the interval by which
they are separated.
I acknowledge, if we were forced to judge by external appearance alone,
the ape might be taken for a variety in the human species. The Creator
has not formed man's body on a model absolutely different from that
of the mere animal; he has comprehended his figure, as well as that
of every other animal, under one general plan, but at the same time
that he has given him a material form, similar to that of the ape,
he infused this animal body with a divine spirit. If he had granted
the same favour, not to the ape, but to the meanest animal, whose
organization seems to us to be the worst of all constructed beings,
this animal would soon have become the rival of man. Quickened by his
spirit it would have excelled every other animal, by having the power
of thought and speech. Therefore, whatever resemblance there may be
between the Hottentot and the ape, the interval which separates them is
immense, since the former is endowed with the faculties of thinking and
speaking.
Who will ever be able to tell in what the organization of an idiot
differs from that of another man? yet the defect is certainly
in the material organs, since the idiot has a soul like another
person. Now, since in mankind, where the whole structure is entirely
conformable, and perfectly similar, a difference so trifling as to
be entirely imperceptible is sufficient to destroy thought, we must
not be astonished that it never appears in the ape, which has not the
necessary principle.
The action of the soul in general is distinct and independent of
matter. But as it has pleased the Divine Author to unite it with the
body, the exercise of its particular actions depends on the state of
the material organs; and this dependance is not only apparent from
the example of idiots but from persons afflicted with delirium,
from infants who cannot think, from healthful men when asleep, and
from very old people, after the power of thinking is gone. Even the
principle of education seems to consist not so much in instructing
the mind, or bringing its operation to perfection, as in modifying
the material organs, and putting them into the most favourable
condition for exercising the thinking principle. Now there are two
kinds of educations which should be carefully distinguished, as their
effects are quite different; the education of the individual, which
is common both to man and the other animals, and that of the species
which belongs to man alone. A young animal, as well from incitement
as example, learns in a few weeks to perform all the actions of its
parents: a child requires a number of years to attain this degree of
perfection, because when born its growth and strength is incomparably
less forward than in young animals. In the first years the mind is a
void relatively to what it becomes in future. A child, therefore, is
much slower in receiving individual education than that of the brute;
but for this very reason it becomes susceptible of that of the species.
The multiplicity of aids, and the continual cares, which for a long
time, the weak state of the infant exact, entertain and increase the
attachment of its parents, and while they are attending to the care
of the body, they cultivate the mind. The time required to strengthen
the first, turns to the profit of the latter. In the generality of
animals the corporeal faculties are more advanced in two months than
those of an infant in two years; there is, therefore, twelve times as
much time employed in its individual education, without reckoning what
is still remaining to acquire after this period, without considering
that animals quit their young as soon as they are able to provide for
themselves, and that soon after this separation they know each other
no more, so that all attachment, and all education, ceases in them
at the very moment assistance is no longer necessary. Now this time
of education being so short, its effects must be very small; and it
is even astonishing that animals acquire in two months whatever is
necessary for their use during the rest of life: and if we suppose a
child, in an equal space of time, should become sufficiently formed
and strong to leave its parents, and never to return to them for
assistance, would there be any sensible difference between this child
and the brute animal? However ingenious and able the parents were,
could they be able to prepare and modify its organs in so short a
space of time, or to establish the least communication of thought
between their minds and his? Could they be able to excite his memory by
impressions sufficiently reiterated? Could they even modify or unfold
their organs of speech? No, for before the child can pronounce a single
word his ear must have received repeated impressions of the sound
expressing that word; and, before he can be able to apply or pronounce
it properly, the same combination of the word, and the object to which
it belongs, must be frequently presented to him. Education, therefore,
which alone can expand the powers of the mind, will be unremittingly
continued for a length of time; if it should cease, not at the end of
two months, as in animals, but even when twelve months old, the mind
of the child, which could have received no impression, would remain
inactive, like that of an idiot, the defect of whose organs prevents
the reception of knowledge. This reasoning would apply with double
force if we suppose the child born in a pure state of nature, if it
had only a Hottentot mother for its tutoress, and that at the age of
two months it was able to separate from her, and live without her care
and assistance:--would not this child be worse than an idiot, and
entirely on a par with the brutes? But in this state of nature, the
first education, that is, the education of necessity, exacts as much
time as in the civilized state, because in both the child is equally
weak, and equally slow in its growth, and consequently it has need of
the care of its parents for an equal portion of time. In short, it
would infallibly perish if abandoned before the age of three years.
Now this necessary habitude, so long continued between the mother and
the child, is sufficient to communicate to it all that she possesses;
and though we should falsely suppose, that this mother, in a state of
nature, possesses not any one gift, not even that of speech, would
not this long habitude with her child produce a language? Thus this
state of pure nature, wherein we suppose man to be without thought
and speech, is imaginary, and never had existence. This needful and
long intercourse of parents with their children produces society in
the midst of a desart. The family understand each other by signs and
sounds; and this first ray of intelligence, when cherished, cultivated,
and communicated, unfolds, in the process of time, all the buds of
thought; and as this habitual intercourse could not sustain itself so
long without producing mutual signs and sounds, always repeated and
gradually engraven on the memory of the child, would consequently
become constant and intelligible expressions; though the list of words
is short, it still forms a language, which will soon become more
extended as the family increases, and will always follow the steps of
society in improvement. Society being formed, the education of the
child is no longer individual, for then the parents communicate to
it not only what they possess from Nature, but also what they have
received from their ancestors, and from the society of which they form
a part. It is no longer a communication between detached individuals,
confined like animals to the transmission of simple faculties, but an
institution of which the whole species partakes, and whose produce
constitutes the bond and basis of society.
Even among brute animals, though deprived of the thinking principle,
those whose education is the longest are also those which seem to have
the greatest share of intelligence: the elephant, who takes the longest
time in completing its growth, and which requires the assistance of its
mother for the whole of the first year, is also the most intelligent
animal. The Guinea-pig, which requires only three weeks to accomplish
its growth, and be in a generating state, is perhaps, for this reason
alone, one of the most stupid animals in Nature. With respect to
the ape, with a view to ascertain whose nature we have gone into
this investigation, whatever resemblance he may bear to man, yet his
affinity to the brutes is evident from the moment of his birth; he
is then proportionably stronger, and more completely formed than the
infant, and the time of his growth bears no comparison; the assistance
of his mother is only necessary during a few months; his education is
purely individual, and consequently as sterile as that of other animals.
The ape, therefore, notwithstanding his resemblance to the human
form, is a brute, and so far from being second in our species, he is
not even the first in the order of animals, because he is not the
most intelligent among them; therefore it is only on account of the
corporeal resemblance that prejudice has been formed in favour of the
great faculties of the ape. He resembles man it is said both externally
and internally, and therefore he must not only imitate us, but also
of his own accord, act in the same manner as we do. We have seen that
every action which we call human is relative to society: that they
depend, at first on the mind, and afterwards on education, the physical
principle of which is the necessity there is for the long intercourse
between parents and children: that this intercourse is very short
with the ape; that, like other animals, he only receives an education
purely individual, and is not susceptible of any other; consequently he
cannot act like man, since no action of the ape has the same principle,
nor the same end. With respect to imitation, which appears to be the
strongest and most striking character in the ape kind, and which the
vulgar refer to him as a peculiar talent, before we decide, we must
examine whether this imitation be spontaneous or forced. Does the ape
imitate the human species from inclination, or from possessing an
innate capacity of performing those actions without choice or exertion?
I willingly appeal to all those who have observed this animal without
prejudice, and I am convinced they will agree with me, that there
is nothing voluntary in their imitation. The monkey having arms and
hands, makes use of them as we do, but without any idea of copying our
example. The similitude of his limbs and organs necessarily produces
motions resembling ours; being formed like man he must be enabled to
move like him; but this similarity of motion by no means proves that he
acts from imitation. Let us, for instance, construct two pendulums of
the same form, and give them an equal motion, would it not be absurd to
say that these machines imitate each other? It is the same with respect
to the ape, relatively to the body of man; they are two machines,
similarly constructed, and by the impulse of Nature move nearly in the
same manner: however, parity must not be considered as imitation; the
one depends on matter, and the other exists only in reason. Imitation
supposes a design of copying; the ape is incapable of forming this
design, which requires a train of thought and judgment; for this
reason, man, if he choose, can imitate the ape, but the ape cannot have
an idea of imitating man.
This parity is no more than the physical part of imitation, and not
so complete as the similitude, from which, however, it proceeds as an
immediate effect. The ape resembles man more in his body and limbs
than in the use he makes of them. By observing the ape attentively
we shall perceive that all his motions are sudden, intermittent, and
precipitate; and to compare them with those of man we must suppose
a different model. Every action of the ape strongly partakes of his
education, which is purely animal; and they appear to be extravagant,
ridiculous, and inconsequential, because we judge of them by our
own, which is a false comparison. As his nature is vivacious, his
temperament warm, his disposition petulant, and none of his affections
have been polished by education, all his habitudes are excessive,
and more resemble the actions of a lunatic than those of a man, or
even those of a peaceable animal: from the same reason we find him
indocile, and receiving with difficulty the impressions we wish him to
imbibe. He is insensible to kindness, and only to be rendered obedient
through fear of chastisement. He may be kept in captivity, but not in
a domestic state. Always sullen, stubborn, or making grimaces, he may
rather be said to be subdued than tamed; therefore none of this species
has ever been domesticated in any part of the world, and consequently
is more distant from man than most other animals, for docility supposes
some analogy betwixt the giver and the receiver of instruction; a
relative quality, which cannot be exercised but when there is a certain
number of common faculties in both, which only differ from each other
because they are active in the master and passive in the scholar. Now
the passive qualities of the ape have less relation to the active
qualities of man than those of the dog or elephant, who only require
good treatment to receive the kind and even delicate sentiments of a
faithful attachment, voluntary obedience, grateful service, and an
unreserved and ready attention to the commands of their master.
The ape is, therefore, further removed from the human species in
relative qualities, than most other animals: He likewise differs
greatly by temperament. The human species can dwell in every climate;
he lives and multiplies in the northern as well as in the southern
regions; but the ape lives with difficulty in temperate countries, and
can only multiply in the hottest parts of the earth. This difference of
temperament supposes others in organization, which though concealed,
are no less real; it must also have a great influence on his natural
dispositions. The excess of heat so necessary to this animal renders
all his affections, and all his qualities, excessive; and we need not
seek for any other cause to account for his petulance, his lubricity,
and his other passions, which seem to be as violent as they are
extravagant.
Thus the ape, which philosophers, as well as the generality of people,
have regarded as a being difficult to define, and the nature of which
was at least equivocal, and intermediate between that of man and the
brute, is, in fact, no other than a real brute, wearing externally
a human mask, but internally destitute of thought, and every other
attribute which constitutes the human species: an animal inferior to
many others in his relative faculties, and most essentially different
from the human race in his nature, temperament, and also in the time
necessary to his education, gestation, growth, and duration of life;
that is, in every real habitude which constitutes what we call _Nature_
in a particular being.
_Engraved for Barr's Buffon._
[Illustration: FIG. 195. _Jocko._]
[Illustration: FIG. 196. _Small Gibbon._]
THE ORANG-OUTANG[L], OR THE PONGO, AND THE JOCKO.
[Footnote L: Orang-outang is the name this animal bears in the
East-Indies; _pongo_, its denomination at Lowando, a province of Congo;
and Kukurlacko in some parts of the East-Indies.]
We shall present the Orang-outang and the Jocko together, because
they, possibly, belong to the same species. Of all the ape and monkey
kinds, these bear the greatest resemblance to the human form, and
consequently, those which are most worthy particular notice. We have
seen the small orang-outang, or jocko (_fig. 195._) alive, and have
preserved its skin; but we can only speak of the pongo, or great
orang-outang, from the accounts given us by travellers. If their
relations might be depended on, if they were not often obscure, faulty,
and exaggerated, we should not doubt of its being a different species
from the jocko, a species more perfect, and approaching still nearer to
the human race. Bontius, who was head physician at Batavia, and who has
left some excellent observations on the Natural History of that part of
India, expressly says, that he saw with admiration, some individuals
of this species walking erect on two feet, and among others a female
(of which he gives a figure) who seemed to have an idea of modesty,
covering herself with her hand on the appearance of men with whom
she was not acquainted; who sighed, cried, and did a number of other
actions, so like the human race, that she wanted nothing of humanity
but the gift of speech. Linnæus, upon the authority of Kjoep and
other travellers, says, that even this faculty is not wanting in the
orang-outang, but that he thinks, speaks, and expresses his meaning in
a whistling tone. He calls him the _Nocturnal Man_, and at the same
time gives such a description of him, that it is impossible to decide
whether he is a brute or human being. We must, however, remark, that,
according to Linnæus, this being, whatever he may be, is not above
half the height of a man; and as Bontius makes no mention of the size
of his orang-outang, we should imagine them to be the same: but, then,
this animal of Linnæus and Bontius would not be the true orang-outang,
which is of the size of a very tall man: neither can he be what we
call the _Jocko_, which I have seen alive; for although he was of
the same size as that described by Linnæus, yet he differed in every
other character. I can affirm, from having repeatedly seen him, that
he neither spake nor expressed himself by a whistling noise, and that
he did not perform a single thing which a well instructed dog could
not perform: He differed in almost every respect from the description
which Linnæus gives of the orang-outang, and agreed much better with
that of the _satyrus_ of the same author. I therefore greatly doubt
the truth of the description of this _nocturnal man_; I even doubt his
existence; and it was probably a white negro, a _Chacrelas_, whom those
travellers, which Linnæus has quoted, have but superficially seen, and
as blindly described, for the Chacrelas, like the nocturnal man of
this author, has white, woolly, frizly hair, red eyes, a weak sight,
&c. But then they are men, and do not whistle; nor are they pigmies of
only 30 inches in height; they think, speak and act, like other men,
and their stature is exactly the same.
Discarding, therefore, this ill-described being, and supposing a
little exaggeration in Bontius's relation concerning the modesty of
his female orang-outang, there only remains a brute animal, namely,
an Ape, of which we have information from authors of more credit; and
which is described with the greatest exactness by Edward Tyson, a
celebrated English anatomist. This learned gentleman says, that there
are two species of this ape, and that the one he gives a description
of is not so large as the other called _barris_, or _baris_, by
travellers, and _drill_ by the English. This _drill_ is, in fact,
the large orang-outang of the East-Indies, or the pongo of Guinea;
and the pigmy described by Tyson is the jocko, which we have seen
alive. The philosopher Gassendi having advanced, on the authority of
a traveller, named St. Amand, that in the island of Java there was a
creature which formed the shade between man and the ape, the fact was
positively denied. To prove it, Peiresse produced a letter from M.
Noël, a physician, who lived in Africa, in which it is asserted, that
there is found in Guinea a large ape, called _barris_, which walks
erect on its two feet, has an appearance of more gravity and sagacity
than any of the other species, and has a very strong inclination for
women. Darcos, Nieremberg, and Dapper, speak nearly the same of the
barris. Battel calls it pongo, and assures us, "that, excepting his
size, he is exactly like a man in all his proportions; but he is as
tall as a giant; his face is like that of a man, his eyes deep sunk
in the head, and the hair on his brows extremely long; his visage is
without hair, as are also his ears and hands; his body is lightly
covered with hair. He scarcely differs from man, except not having any
calf to his legs; yet he always walks on his hind legs: he sleeps under
trees, and builds himself a shelter against the sun and the rains. He
lives only upon nuts and fruits, and is no way carnivorous: he cannot
speak, and has no more understanding than any other animal of the
brute creation. When the people of the country travel in the woods
they make fires by which they sleep in the night, and being gone, in
the morning this animal comes and sits by it until it goes out, but he
has not skill enough to keep the flame alive by feeding it with fuel.
They go together in companies, and if they happen to meet with one of
the human species, remote from succour, they shew him no mercy. They
even attack the elephants, whom they beat with their clubs, and oblige
them to leave that part of the forest which they claim as their own.
These creatures are never taken alive, for they are so strong that ten
men would not be able to hold one of them. They sometimes destroy the
young ones; the mother carries them, she herself being in an erect
posture, and they cling to her body with their hands and knees. There
are two kinds of this animal, both very much resembling the human race,
the one the natives call pongo, is taller and thicker than a man; and
the other _engeco_, or jocko, whose size is much smaller." It is from
this passage that I derived the names _pongo_ and _jocko_. Battel
further observes, that when one of these animals dies the rest cover
his body with leaves and branches of trees. Purchas adds, in a note,
that in the conversations he had with Battel he learned that a negro
boy was taken from him by a pongo, and carried into the woods, where
he continued a whole year, and that on his return he said, that they
never attempted to do him any injury; that they were generally about
the height of the human race, but much larger, and nearly double the
bulk of a man. Jobson asserts to have seen, in places frequented by
these animals, a sort of habitation composed of interwoven branches,
which might serve them at least as a shelter from the heat of the sun.
"The apes of Guinea, says Bosman, which are called _smitten_ by the
Flemings, are of a yellow colour, and grow to a very large size. I have
seen some above five feet high. These apes are of a very disagreeable
appearance, as well as those of another species, which resemble them in
every particular except in size, not being one fourth part so big. They
are very easily taught to do almost whatever their masters please."
Schouten says, "That the animals which the Indians call orang-outangs
are nearly of the same height and figure as man, but that their back
and loins are covered with hair, although they have none on the fore
part of their bodies; that the females have two large breasts, that
their face is coarse, their nose flat, and their ears like those of
men; that they are robust, active, bold, and defend themselves against
armed men; that they are passionately fond of women, who cannot
pass through the woods which they inhabit, without these animals
immediately attacking and ravishing them." Dampier, Froger, and other
travellers, assert, that young girls, about eight or ten years old, are
taken away by these animals, and carried to the tops of high trees,
and that it is a very great difficulty to rescue them. To all these
testimonies we may add that of M. de la Brosse, mentioned in his voyage
to Angola, in 1738, wherein he says that the orang-outangs (which he
calls _quimpezés_) often attempt to surprise the Negresses, whom, when
they succeed, they detain for the purpose of enjoying, feeding them
very plentifully all the time. "I knew (says he) a Negress at Loango
who had lived among these animals for three years. They grow from six
to seven feet high, and are of great strength. They build sheds, and
make use of clubs for their defence. They have flat faces, broad flat
noses, ears without a tip, and their skins are fairer than that of a
mulatto, but they are covered on many parts of their bodies with long
and tawny-coloured hair: their bellies are extremely tense, their heels
flat, rising behind about half an inch: they sometimes walk upright,
and sometimes upon all fours. We purchased two of these animals, a male
of about fourteen months old, and a female about twelve, &c."
Thus we have given the most precise and perfect account we could
collect of the great _orang-outang_, or _pongo_; and as magnitude is
the only striking character in which it differs from the jocko, I
must persist in my belief that they are of the same species; for two
things are at least possible. 1. That the jocko may be a constant
variety; that is, a much smaller race than that of the pongo; in fact,
they are both of the same climate, they live in the same manner,
and consequently ought to resemble each other perfectly, since they
equally receive, and are subject to the same influences of earth and
sky. Have we not an example of a like variety in the human species?
The Laplander and Finlander, though living under the same climate,
yet differ almost as much in size, and much more in other attributes,
as the jocko differs from the great orang-outang. 2. The jocko, or
small orang-outang, which we have seen alive, as well as those of
Tulpius, Tyson, and others which have been transported into Europe,
were, perhaps, only young animals which had not attained the
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/45867